No 30 years war, HRE demographics and economy?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Thirty_Years'_War
"So great was the devastation brought about by the war that estimates put the reduction of population in the German states at about 15% to 30%.[48] Some regions were affected much more than others.[49] For example, Württemberg lost three-quarters of its population during the war.[50] In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas an estimated two-thirds of the population died.[51] The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half.[52] The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs.[53][54] Much of the destruction of civilian lives and property was caused by the cruelty and greed of mercenary soldiers, many of whom were rich commanders and poor soldiers.[55] Villages were especially easy prey to the marauding armies. Those that survived, like the small village of Drais near Mainz would take almost a hundred years to recover. The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.[56] The war caused serious dislocations to both the economies and populations of central Europe, but may have done no more than seriously exacerbate changes that had begun earlier.[57][58]
Pestilence of several kinds raged among combatants and civilians in Germany and surrounding lands from 1618 to 1648. Many features of the war spread disease. These included troop movements, the influx of soldiers from foreign countries, and the shifting locations of battle fronts. In addition, the displacement of civilian populations and the overcrowding of refugees into cities led to both disease and famine. Information about numerous epidemics is generally found in local chronicles, such as parish registers and tax records, that are often incomplete and may be exaggerated. The chronicles do show that epidemic disease was not a condition exclusive to war time, but was present in many parts of Germany for several decades prior to 1618.[59]
However, when the Danish and Imperial armies met in Saxony and Thuringia during 1625 and 1626, disease and infection in local communities increased. Local chronicles repeatedly referred to "head disease", "Hungarian disease", and a "spotted" disease identified as typhus. After the Mantuan War, between France and the Habsburgs in Italy, the northern half of the Italian peninsula was in the throes of a bubonic plague epidemic (see Italian Plague of 1629–1631). During the unsuccessful siege of Nuremberg, in 1632, civilians and soldiers in both the Swedish and Imperial armies succumbed to typhus and scurvy. Two years later, as the Imperial army pursued the defeated Swedes into southwest Germany, deaths from epidemics were high along the Rhine River. Bubonic plague continued to be a factor in the war. Beginning in 1634, Dresden, Munich, and smaller German communities such as Oberammergau recorded large numbers of plague casualties. In the last decades of the war, both typhus and dysentery had become endemic in Germany."


If the 30 years war either did not happen or was ended early on in the conflict, how would the HRE, or the German states, develop economically and demographically?
Popular accounts give the destruction of 1/3 of the population in 1618 (8 million people) by the end of the war, though modern accounts revise the figure to about 3 million, and the economic devastation as requiring 100 years to reverse (i.e. 1750 before the levels of 1618 were achieved again). As I said there are now dissenting opinions about the level of destruction or the loss of life during this period, but no one argues that the 30 years war did not massively disrupt life in the HRE for the duration of the conflict and sapped the resources of central Europe.
Where would central Europe be in 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2000 if not for this destructive war?
 
Instead of a decaying institution you could very well get a slightly more cohesive (definitely split by confession) HRE. You could also see no super-France.
 
The thirty years war was essentialy the failure of the Hapsburg (both of Spain and Austria) to try to restabilish catholic supremacy in Germany instead to pursue a policy of tolerance as proposed by the peace of Augusta. If they tried to be a less restrictive between 1555 and 1618, maybe...

No TYW? Apart from the question of the defenestration, maybe if Spanish and Dutch found a compromise...
 

Valdemar II

Banned
This is a really hard question, because Germany got insane high birth rate after the war which lasted into the 20th century, we may very well see lower birth rates, but on the other hand it wasn't the only thing which gave a incentiment for this (especially when we compare Germany with other North European countries).

But a few comment, Germany would be more Protestant, even in areas we usual don't see as Protestant (Oberpfalz and Austria). Brandenburg would likely have evolve into a northern version of Bavaria (a major dynastical state) rather than evolving into OTL hypermilitaristic Prussia.

The Danish Oldenburgs would be a whole lot stronger in Germany, with greater Holstein (Holstein, Bremen-Verden, Oldenburg and maybe Lauenburg) replacing Hanover as the major German north western state.

Pfalz would stay a much greater player in Germany rather than being degraded to a minor player. Bavaria on the other hand would stay much less important.

The Imperial Circle would stay as functional units which would serve as element which would ensure that HRE would stay somewhat functional.

France would never made the conquest toward the east which the succeded with in OTL, which would mean we wouldn't get the state of almost permanent French wars between 1670-1715 which we saw in OTL.
 
This is one of the most intriguing questions to (alt) history.

One first rough guess would be the assumption that growth rates in Germany should resemble those in France, and possibly England; perhaps you can reach more reliable results by comparing similar types of landscapes.

To consider a bit deeper, there were parts of Germany which were hardly effected by the war. One larger peaceful chunk of land was Switzerland. As a very rough initial model, you could imagine all of Germany having population and wealth growth rates as Switzerland had starting from 1650.
I think would be a good starting point because the difference between Northern Switzerland and Southern Swabia is likely to have been rather small prior to the conflict.
Of course, the comparison is biased by many factors (as any one). The most important ones here being:
- Much of Switzerland lies in the Alps, which sets natural limits to population growth and agricultural production.
- On the other hand, Switzerland controls several of the most important trade routes through the Alps, which provided for stable incomes before, during, and after the war.
- Swiss economy was boosted during the war by agricultural exports to war-waging parties, as well as recruitment contracts.

As a general remark for this whole topic, note that destruction and killings due to direct martial actions left deep tracks in the mentality of the population, but did not directly ensue the massive demographic losses we are discussing. As far as I am acquainted with the current state of research, there seems to be a consensus that most of the population decrease is owed to diseases following the devastations, and exacerbated by flows of refugees.

Finally, I like it that you ask about demographics and economy first - the political situation is often overrated in alt-Hist scenarios. But of course these are not completely independent: The German (de-facto) particularism did not only handicap commerce by an abundance of toll borders, a great universe of exchange rates, and so many different rule-setting autorities; it also provided for some competition between the states stimulating (some of) them to higher efforts, and making them less sensitive to wrong decisions of one central government.
These last remarks, of course, refer to economic development only. Of course, economy relies largely on demographics, and this is largely independent from the exact political entities.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
@Valdemar:
That's interesting.
What were the effects in Northern Europe?

Sweden increased it tenfold population from 1600 to 2000
Denmark did around the the same (and we too lost 1/3 of the population in 1657-1660).
The territories of the 1600 HRE too saw the same same increase.
Netherlands are outlier in that it saw a significant greater increase almost 15times. While Belgium saw a smaller one only a 5 times increase.

This are interesting because Sweden didn't lose any significant population in this periode, and still they saw the same increase as Denmark and Germany. Of course the former HRE saw this increase while having high emigration but so too did Sweden.

The most important changes was potatoes, Spanish/Dutch clover and other changes in agriculture. But also improvement in hygiene played a important factor. Urbanisation was also a important factor the high Dutch increase are to large extent a result of larger urbanisation mixed with low deathrates. Here the 30YW also kept Germany back we saw almost a century without increased urbanisation of Germany, this are interesting compared to Denmark which almost saw it entire population loss in the rural popualtion, which meant that Denmarks urbanisation rate grew from 10% to 20% after the 1658-1660 war with Sweden, the high agricultural output allowed this. In Germany the long warfare had destroyed many urban centres, interstate trade and their industries. Making it necessary to rebuild them, this are also we saw a alm ost complete loss of power for the free cities over the next century (Hamburg being the great exception*), and the growing importance of princely cities.

*Through both Copenhagen and Berlin still outgrew Hamburg over the next century.
 

Deleted member 1487

As I understand it the HRE was prior to the war the most populated and richest state (if you could call it that) in Europe, a mantle which passed to France after the fighting finally ended, but was regained later on. Had the war not occurred it stands to reason that this dominance would never be lost and the French would not be the biggest boogey man that could take on various smaller, politically disunited states at a whim to expand.
I guess the balance of power would never have been disrupted so early on and only be corrected OTL in 1871 with the formation of a united Germany.
However this entity won't be German exclusively and may well experience a different economic development as time goes on. Population pressures will build as per OTL, but will the resettlement of much of Poland and Bohemia occur without the war ITTL? Poland will still be caught in a series of wars, which will be draining in many ways, and will likely be hit worse because of the Sweden not being distracted by the fighting in Germany. Poland may well find itself settled by a number of extra Germans ITTL. Not sure what is going to happen in Bohemia-Morovia here though.
 
@Wiking:
Depends. If you include the territories in Northern Italy and the Low Countries, then you're certainly right. However, most of these countries were already largely independent from the HRE prior to the war. I don't know by heart whether your statement still holds for Germany proper. Of course, statistics for this period are only reliable to some degree.

Moreover, difference in wealth probably was much bigger between the various regions of the HRE, than between those of France.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
@Wiking:
Depends. If you include the territories in Northern Italy and the Low Countries, then you're certainly right. However, most of these countries were already largely independent from the HRE prior to the war. I don't know by heart whether your statement still holds for Germany proper. Of course, statistics for this period are only reliable to some degree.

Moreover, difference in wealth probably was much bigger between the various regions of the HRE, than between those of France.

The non-Italian, non-Dutch part of the HRE was somewhat bigger than France in population, not massively but around 10-20%. This will only increase over the next century with the adoption of new crops and changes in agricultural technics.

To wealth difference both France and Germany had quite large regional difference, but while the growing French centralisation lowered over the next century the German decentralisation increased them. With the survival of the imperial circles as adminstrative unit it will help with streamline trade. In Franconia and Swabia where they survived they helped the local prince keeping custom down and integrate their estates with each others.
 
Another thought: The TYW triggered significant apprehension of large wars all over Europe, not only in the most affected areas. So without it, conflicts might tend to escalate in the time thereafter, with consequences for the regions whose turn it is.


@Valdemar:
True, Sweden didn't have battles in the homeland, no significant diseases, no destruction, no refugees. But the outflow of young men was noticeable by 1640. The use of German mercenaries was not only a practical idea - it was a consequence of the desire to keep the homeland viable (remember that Sweden let the fitness of its troops deteriorate by this strategy). Even though Sweden didn't have as drastic problems as Germany, there must have been appreciable setbacks in Swedish (and Finnish) population figures.
 

Deleted member 1487

The non-Italian, non-Dutch part of the HRE was somewhat bigger than France in population, not massively but around 10-20%. This will only increase over the next century with the adoption of new crops and changes in agricultural technics.

To wealth difference both France and Germany had quite large regional difference, but while the growing French centralisation lowered over the next century the German decentralisation increased them. With the survival of the imperial circles as adminstrative unit it will help with streamline trade. In Franconia and Swabia where they survived they helped the local prince keeping custom down and integrate their estates with each others.

Would the trend be toward centralization ITTL? IMHO it would because the war seemed to break down imperial authority and the increase in population and trade would require a central apparatus to facilitate commerce and iron out disputes between the local nobility.
Might we see then an expansionist HRE if the conflict is averted? Much as Roman and France used foreign wars to gloss over internal inequalities, there is a chance that the HRE could fight with France/reconquer Holland/expand into Poland/fight the Turks to rally the Empire to a common cause.
'Germany' here will likely grow quite large population and economy-wise, which could well place them in the colonial/exploration race once internal matters quiet down.
 
Note that there are basically three, not two extreme scenarios for a "constitutional" order of the HRE. Two of them deserve the attribute "strong", but only one can be called "centralistic":

a) strong central authority of the Emperor; this is often mixed up by Emperors and ATL authors with heritability of the Imperial title, but not necessarily linked to it in a causal way; :)
b) the transfer of basically all sovereign right to the principalities,
c) the mostly forgotten case: a large portion of power lies with Imperial institutions "staffed" by the princes, like the Imperial Diet or the Imperial Court.

I think the last option is the best way to guarantee a long-lasting stable HRE which deserves the name "state". As a matter of fact, the HRE developped in this direction starting from the late 15th century.

The basic problem is that this structure has no fervent supporters: The Emperor goes for a), while the (stonger) princes prefer b). c) would be the best realistic solution for all - this is some type of prisoners' dilemma.

Ferdinand II tried to install a hereditary system, but was not really smart in achieving this.
So obviously, all three gates were open at the beginning of the TYW.

And although in great strokes history seems to tell the opposite, I still think c) was possible after the TYW, by 1700, say. It think it was rather after the War of Spanish Succession when the Emperors grew ignorant of Imperial issues.

But now we are already back in purely political realms ..
 
As to the cities Valdemar mentioned: Cologne used to be the biggest city in Germany basically since its foundation. It was the TYW which put an end to this era: Hamburg, whose massive fortifications none of the armies dared to attack, as useful to both as a provider of arms. It experienced relative prosperity and grew in population by refugees. Among these, Dutch merchants proved especially beneficial as with their connections and experience, they soon had established new commercial companies.


Without the TYW, times will still look fine for cities like Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen, but their market share and influence relative to the larger states will slowly decrease (as IOTL).


The non-Italian, non-Dutch part of the HRE was somewhat bigger than France in population, not massively but around 10-20%.

I suppose this still includes Bohemia and Switzerland?
 

Deleted member 1487

Would the excess German populations start moving East into Poland once war devastated the latter?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Another thought: The TYW triggered significant apprehension of large wars all over Europe, not only in the most affected areas. So without it, conflicts might tend to escalate in the time thereafter, with consequences for the regions whose turn it is.


@Valdemar:
True, Sweden didn't have battles in the homeland, no significant diseases, no destruction, no refugees. But the outflow of young men was noticeable by 1640. The use of German mercenaries was not only a practical idea - it was a consequence of the desire to keep the homeland viable (remember that Sweden let the fitness of its troops deteriorate by this strategy). Even though Sweden didn't have as drastic problems as Germany, there must have been appreciable setbacks in Swedish (and Finnish) population figures.

The loss in Sweden was minimal, yes we see a slight fall in a single generation of young mens. But compared to lose 1/3 of the population it had little effect to no effect. It's im portant to remember that relative few people fought in these wars, and the main losses was civilians.

Would the trend be toward centralization ITTL? IMHO it would because the war seemed to break down imperial authority and the increase in population and trade would require a central apparatus to facilitate commerce and iron out disputes between the local nobility.
Might we see then an expansionist HRE if the conflict is averted? Much as Roman and France used foreign wars to gloss over internal inequalities, there is a chance that the HRE could fight with France/reconquer Holland/expand into Poland/fight the Turks to rally the Empire to a common cause.
'Germany' here will likely grow quite large population and economy-wise, which could well place them in the colonial/exploration race once internal matters quiet down.

I doubt we will see the HRE expand, the Habsburg prefered to keep Hungary outside the empire and unless they lose Bohemia there are little reason to expand the HRE borders with another kingdom. The only place I could see the HRE expand are in France to remove the French kings overlordship of French territories. The Habsburg main focus will be to weaken the princes and expand their overlordship over them, maybe force them to pay taxes to the Emperor or maybe compromise with them make a new taxes like the Turk tax, where the emperor gives the princes right to tax the knights in their domains(whom had a high degree of tax exception), against the emperor getting part of the spoils. The latter would have the benefit that it would help the empire consolidate, but it would also strengthen the princes.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Would the excess German populations start moving East into Poland once war devastated the latter?

They did in OTL but I doubt we will see a German Poland at most we will see Royal Prussia and Samogitia turn German, if things goes as OTL.

Hungary on the other hand are likely to receive a lot more Germans, and much of southern and western Hungary may go German. Austria settle Germans in Hungary from the start, we may very well see Hungary split in a German and Slovakian, Catholic west under the Habsburgs and a Hungarian and Romanian, Protestant and othodox east under the Transsylvanian Princes.
 
@Valdemar: I see. And it makes a lot of sense to include the Czech population in this era.

@Wiking:
I like it very much that you emphasized demographics.
Unfortunately, don't think it's possibly to make political conclusions:
Extreme demographic situations leave a country only with few choices,
a relatively normal situation as in this alt-Germany allows for almost any future.


Note that Brandenburg started its rise by seizing the opportunity of a "zero hour",
and rebuild everything in a more modern (and more Dutch) way.
Disasters can turn out to be opportunities.
 
Top