So for the first half of the Thirty years' war (1618-35) the Habsburgs had more or less won against every opponent they faced. They beat the German Protestants, the Danish and the Swedish and seemed well on their way to victory when the French intervened. After that the war stalemated and became a dynastic conflict, an Italian wars 2.0. So lets say the French are unable to intervene in the war for whatever reason (the Huguenots do better at resisting the Royal government, an earlier Fronde uprising, a longer Anglo-French war, ex) and the war ends in the early or mid 1630s.

What are the long term effects of such a victory? A centralized Holy Roman Empire? The restoration of Catholicism as the dominant religion in Germany? A possible Spanish-Imperial reconquest of the Netherlands? A continuing Iberian union? Please discuss!
 

ben0628

Banned
So for the first half of the Thirty years' war (1618-35) the Habsburgs had more or less won against every opponent they faced. They beat the German Protestants, the Danish and the Swedish and seemed well on their way to victory when the French intervened. After that the war stalemated and became a dynastic conflict, an Italian wars 2.0. So lets say the French are unable to intervene in the war for whatever reason (the Huguenots do better at resisting the Royal government, an earlier Fronde uprising, a longer Anglo-French war, ex) and the war ends in the early or mid 1630s.

What are the long term effects of such a victory? A centralized Holy Roman Empire? The restoration of Catholicism as the dominant religion in Germany? A possible Spanish-Imperial reconquest of the Netherlands? A continuing Iberian union? Please discuss!

A more powerful Bavaria (that isn't being destroyed French troops), and a less in debt Austria. I don't think Spain will be able to conquer the Dutch either way. I don't think it changes much when it comes to religion. The war was less of a religious conflict than what people make it out to be. France, Sweden, and Denmark all joined the conflict more or less for political reasons. Hell powerful Protestant electorates such as Saxony and Brandenburg only joined the conflict AFTER Sweden started kicking Count Tillys ass if I'm not mistaken.

The conflict was merely a series of wars started by power hungry rulers who merely used religion as a pretext.

France joined because they wanted to limit Habsburg power, Denmark joined to conquer Hamburg, Sweden joined to expand its Baltic Empire, and the Palatinate joined because it's ruler wanted to become king of Bohemia. Nothing religious about any of that.
 
Is it fair to say the Habsburgs beat Sweden?
Sweden came, raised hell for a few years, and then got sent back to their cold little empire after Gustavus Adolphus died and they were left without the direction they needed. I'd argue the Swedes were knocked out at Lützen, it just took a little while for them to be fully crushed.
 
The Austrian Habsburgs got out of the thirty years war what they realistically could of gotten, which was stronger control over Bohemia and eliminating Protestantism in southern Germany.

If they had done better they might have gotten a stronger government for the Holy Roman Empire with themselves in charge of it, but this was always something of a stretch.

Now the Spanish Habsburg position could be improved on, but nearly all of their problems really had nothing to do with the war.
 
A more powerful Bavaria (that isn't being destroyed French troops), and a less in debt Austria. I don't think Spain will be able to conquer the Dutch either way. I don't think it changes much when it comes to religion. The war was less of a religious conflict than what people make it out to be. France, Sweden, and Denmark all joined the conflict more or less for political reasons. Hell powerful Protestant electorates such as Saxony and Brandenburg only joined the conflict AFTER Sweden started kicking Count Tillys ass if I'm not mistaken.

The conflict was merely a series of wars started by power hungry rulers who merely used religion as a pretext.

France joined because they wanted to limit Habsburg power, Denmark joined to conquer Hamburg, Sweden joined to expand its Baltic Empire, and the Palatinate joined because it's ruler wanted to become king of Bohemia. Nothing religious about any of that.

Saxony's a good example -- they fought on the "Catholic" side for a couple of years at the start of the war, then did nothing for a bit, then joined the Swedes when Gustavus came along, and then later switched back to fighting for the Emperor.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Sweden came, raised hell for a few years, and then got sent back to their cold little empire after Gustavus Adolphus died and they were left without the direction they needed. I'd argue the Swedes were knocked out at Lützen, it just took a little while for them to be fully crushed.


Sweden ended up with Pomerania and control of the North German estuaries. I'm not sure that's nothing.
 
OK my idea for the POD is the siege of Stralsund: OTL it was Albrecht von Wallenstein's first defeat and gave the Swedes a bridgehead into Germany. So the idea is Wallenstein successfully takes the city and secures control of the Baltic coast. This allows the Imperialists to build a Fleet for the Empire in the Baltic, projecting Habsburg power into the Baltic and potentially the North Sea and challenging the Swedish and Danish navies. This also means that in 1630 the Prince-Electors are unlikely to get Wallenstein dismissed as the Emperor has no reason to lose confidence in him. Hell we could also see the Imperialists successfully support the Polish against the Swedish.

I also wonder if we could see the Edict of Restitution fully implemented. If so we could see Catholicism begin to be restored in Northern Germany. I also wonder if we could see the Prince-Electors decide to support the Emperor's plan to authorize imperial troops for the Spanish campaign against the Netherlands.
 

ben0628

Banned
OK my idea for the POD is the siege of Stralsund: OTL it was Albrecht von Wallenstein's first defeat and gave the Swedes a bridgehead into Germany. So the idea is Wallenstein successfully takes the city and secures control of the Baltic coast. This allows the Imperialists to build a Fleet for the Empire in the Baltic, projecting Habsburg power into the Baltic and potentially the North Sea and challenging the Swedish and Danish navies. This also means that in 1630 the Prince-Electors are unlikely to get Wallenstein dismissed as the Emperor has no reason to lose confidence in him. Hell we could also see the Imperialists successfully support the Polish against the Swedish.

I also wonder if we could see the Edict of Restitution fully implemented. If so we could see Catholicism begin to be restored in Northern Germany. I also wonder if we could see the Prince-Electors decide to support the Emperor's plan to authorize imperial troops for the Spanish campaign against the Netherlands.

The Swedes already have a foothold on the continent at Danzig by this point I believe. Also I don't think the HRE could have the naval capabilities to match the Swedes or Danes at this point, especially since they have to rely on Protestant north German sailors.

As for Wallenstein if he stays in command he might become to powerful and get murdered like in otl.

If anything, German troops will be used to deal with Transylvania and maintain border fortifications along the Ottoman Empire. The Austrian Hapsburgs don't really care about the Dutch.
 
The death of Gustavus Adolphus only set the Swedes back for a couple of years before Torstenson and Oxenstierna got going in earnest. Lützen just brought to an end the first phase of Swedish involvement and they stayed heavily engaged throughout the remainder of the conflict. The Peace of Westphalia was made up of two parts, The Treaty of Ösnabruck and Münster, with half of the negotiations being between Sweden and the Habsburgs. To say that Sweden wasn't a major combatant is simply not accurate.

For the Habsburgs to win they need to prevent Sweden from entering the war. One way of doing so would have been to prevent Muskovy from agreeing to go to war against the PLC, which allowed GAII to redirect his attentions to the HRE. Without a distracted PLC Sweden can't enter the 30YW. This is all part of the intricate web of diplomacy that was involved in the conflict.

Without the Swedes, the French don't have any credible combatants to support, and none that would fit the requirements either. The French were further distracted by a Hugenot uprising in Toulon at the time and had significant internal challenges, which is part of why it took so long for them to involve themselves in the 30YW.

Would suggest the "When Diplomacy Fails" podcast special on the 30 Years' War for much, much more info.
 
The Swedes already have a foothold on the continent at Danzig by this point I believe. Also I don't think the HRE could have the naval capabilities to match the Swedes or Danes at this point, especially since they have to rely on Protestant north German sailors.

As for Wallenstein if he stays in command he might become to powerful and get murdered like in otl.

If anything, German troops will be used to deal with Transylvania and maintain border fortifications along the Ottoman Empire. The Austrian Hapsburgs don't really care about the Dutch.

I can't find anything that says Danzig was controlled by Sweden in the early 1630s. As for Naval capabilities, your sort of right. Initially no the empire wouldn't be able to compete with the Danish or the Swedes but if given time they could do so. Remember at the time the Spanish had one of the largest navies in the world, so Madrid could sent their cousins naval advisors.

To Wallenstein, he was judicially murdered after he lost the confidence of the Emperor and then began plans to betray him. If the Emperor remains supportive of him, there's no reason to dismiss Wallenstein or to have him killed.

Finally, I wouldn't be so sure. From what I can tell, Emperor Ferdinand II planned to aid his Spanish cousins in their war against the Dutch after a general settlement could be crafted for the Empire, a major goal at the Regensburg electoral congress in 1630. Even if the Electors wouldn't back the use of the Empire's army, the Emperor could still use his own imperial one. A joint invasion of the Netherlands could be in the cards if the Emperor's not dealing with the Swedes.

The death of Gustavus Adolphus only set the Swedes back for a couple of years before Torstenson and Oxenstierna got going in earnest. Lützen just brought to an end the first phase of Swedish involvement and they stayed heavily engaged throughout the remainder of the conflict. The Peace of Westphalia was made up of two parts, The Treaty of Ösnabruck and Münster, with half of the negotiations being between Sweden and the Habsburgs. To say that Sweden wasn't a major combatant is simply not accurate.

For the Habsburgs to win they need to prevent Sweden from entering the war. One way of doing so would have been to prevent Muskovy from agreeing to go to war against the PLC, which allowed GAII to redirect his attentions to the HRE. Without a distracted PLC Sweden can't enter the 30YW. This is all part of the intricate web of diplomacy that was involved in the conflict.

Without the Swedes, the French don't have any credible combatants to support, and none that would fit the requirements either. The French were further distracted by a Hugenot uprising in Toulon at the time and had significant internal challenges, which is part of why it took so long for them to involve themselves in the 30YW.

Would suggest the "When Diplomacy Fails" podcast special on the 30 Years' War for much, much more info.

That's not all that true. After the Battle of Nördlingen the Emperor was able to force peace on the German Princes, ending the civil war aspect of the Thirty years' war. If the French hadn't got involved chances are the Swedes would have been forced out of Germany. While I do agree that Sweden was definitely a major combatant of the war, they wouldn't have been able to last or win without French financial aid and later intervention.

To keeping Sweden out of the war, what about killing Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Trzciana? If King Gustav is dead then there's no chance that Sweden would decide to get involved in the Thirty years' war. No regency council is going to authorize an unnecessary war. As to France, I've also thought of that. My idea has the English be more successful in the Anglo-French war (1627-1630), propping the Huguenots up enough to keep the French focused on domestic affairs. It won't last all that long, but long enough for the Habsburgs to win the war, forcing France to fight on her own if she wants a war.

To the podcast, I'll check it out. Sounds interesting.
 
That's not all that true. After the Battle of Nördlingen the Emperor was able to force peace on the German Princes, ending the civil war aspect of the Thirty years' war. If the French hadn't got involved chances are the Swedes would have been forced out of Germany. While I do agree that Sweden was definitely a major combatant of the war, they wouldn't have been able to last or win without French financial aid and later intervention.

To keeping Sweden out of the war, what about killing Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Trzciana? If King Gustav is dead then there's no chance that Sweden would decide to get involved in the Thirty years' war. No regency council is going to authorize an unnecessary war. As to France, I've also thought of that. My idea has the English be more successful in the Anglo-French war (1627-1630), propping the Huguenots up enough to keep the French focused on domestic affairs. It won't last all that long, but long enough for the Habsburgs to win the war, forcing France to fight on her own if she wants a war.

To the podcast, I'll check it out. Sounds interesting.

The Battle of Nördlingen did force the French to get involved, I agree with that. My point was just that the Swedes remained a significant threat even afterwards. At the Battle of Wittstock most of the aftereffects of Nördlingen were reversed and under a succession of Field Marshals: Johan Banér, Alexander Leslie and Lennart Torstenson, the Swedes were able to remain one of the most important combatants in the war. When the French were experiencing one loss or disaster after another prior to Rocroi the Swedes were rampaging across northern Germany crushing almost all opposition they faced. What held them back was mostly French cuts to funding, which was done to prevent the Swedes from marginalizing French gains in the conflict. Gustavus Adolphus II brought Sweden into the conflict and taught people to fear the Swedes, but it was his succeeding military and state leaders who truly cemented the Swedish Empire as a leading power in Europe for the next 90 years.

The German Protestants ended up being completely marginalized from influencing the conflict after Prague, much to their displeasure, not even having a say at the final rounds of negotiation for the Treaty of Westphalia.

I honestly think you could keep GAII alive and not have him intervene in the HRE if you complicate or expand the Anglo-French War as you are suggesting. If you can distract Richelieu or kill him then you never get the complex web of negotiations that he initiated that led to Muskovy and Sweden remaining at peace, Muskovy agreeing to attack Poland and Sweden agreeing to attacking the HRE.

Sweden's entry into the 30YW was predicated on them not having to fear attacks from Muskovy and the PLC. Without those assurances GAII is never going to join in the fighting. Without Sweden showing that the Imperials can be beaten I don't think you would have a French intervention. Richelieu was incredibly wary of intervening and used all other means before he got involved in the war directly.

All of this creates a number of interesting questions for the HRE situation, What does Wallenstein do? Without Swedish intervention Tilly likely continues to dominate which leaves him increasingly marginalized and in danger of having Ferdinand turn on him completely. Would this be enough to get Wallenstein to turn on the Habsburgs? He was incredibly loyal throughout his time in service to the Habsburgs, but at what point does he determine that he has to act or he will be killed? Wallenstein stayed loyal far longer than was healthy for him IOTL, and when he found himself in trouble his enemies at court were quick to demonize him to Ferdinand. Afaik there was no actual proof of him planning treason, it was all rumors and innuendo but Wallenstein was the only man left on the Imperial side with an army as large and personally loyal as his was.

Without French or Swedish intervention in the HRE Ferdinand is likely to go pretty far with his religious policies which create another large number of potential changes.

I think you have a fantastic opportunity to a timeline here, I hope you take up the challenge. The Podcast I mentioned has very detailed coverage of many of the actors, diplomatic moves, motivations and much more involved in the 30YW.
 
The Battle of Nördlingen did force the French to get involved, I agree with that. My point was just that the Swedes remained a significant threat even afterwards. At the Battle of Wittstock most of the aftereffects of Nördlingen were reversed and under a succession of Field Marshals: Johan Banér, Alexander Leslie and Lennart Torstenson, the Swedes were able to remain one of the most important combatants in the war. When the French were experiencing one loss or disaster after another prior to Rocroi the Swedes were rampaging across northern Germany crushing almost all opposition they faced. What held them back was mostly French cuts to funding, which was done to prevent the Swedes from marginalizing French gains in the conflict. Gustavus Adolphus II brought Sweden into the conflict and taught people to fear the Swedes, but it was his succeeding military and state leaders who truly cemented the Swedish Empire as a leading power in Europe for the next 90 years.

The German Protestants ended up being completely marginalized from influencing the conflict after Prague, much to their displeasure, not even having a say at the final rounds of negotiation for the Treaty of Westphalia.

I honestly think you could keep GAII alive and not have him intervene in the HRE if you complicate or expand the Anglo-French War as you are suggesting. If you can distract Richelieu or kill him then you never get the complex web of negotiations that he initiated that led to Muskovy and Sweden remaining at peace, Muskovy agreeing to attack Poland and Sweden agreeing to attacking the HRE.

Sweden's entry into the 30YW was predicated on them not having to fear attacks from Muskovy and the PLC. Without those assurances GAII is never going to join in the fighting. Without Sweden showing that the Imperials can be beaten I don't think you would have a French intervention. Richelieu was incredibly wary of intervening and used all other means before he got involved in the war directly.

All of this creates a number of interesting questions for the HRE situation, What does Wallenstein do? Without Swedish intervention Tilly likely continues to dominate which leaves him increasingly marginalized and in danger of having Ferdinand turn on him completely. Would this be enough to get Wallenstein to turn on the Habsburgs? He was incredibly loyal throughout his time in service to the Habsburgs, but at what point does he determine that he has to act or he will be killed? Wallenstein stayed loyal far longer than was healthy for him IOTL, and when he found himself in trouble his enemies at court were quick to demonize him to Ferdinand. Afaik there was no actual proof of him planning treason, it was all rumors and innuendo but Wallenstein was the only man left on the Imperial side with an army as large and personally loyal as his was.

Without French or Swedish intervention in the HRE Ferdinand is likely to go pretty far with his religious policies which create another large number of potential changes.

I think you have a fantastic opportunity to a timeline here, I hope you take up the challenge. The Podcast I mentioned has very detailed coverage of many of the actors, diplomatic moves, motivations and much more involved in the 30YW.

I see your point, but do you think that Sweden would have continued the war if France wasn't able to enter in 1635 or would they negotiate peace at Prague? So, if Gustavus lives and stays out of Germany what do you think his reign would look like? Would we see something like the later deluge of Karl X's reign, a war against Russia or more focus on domestic reforms? So no Swedish invasion means no later French intervention and possibly no Franco-Spanish war (1635-1659). I wonder if a French-Habsburg war was inevitable at that point (the fear of being surrounded on all sides would still exist, as would the resentment of Habsburg domination in Europe) or if Richelieu would instead focus his attention domestically. I wonder if England could get any concessions out of Paris? Perhaps reclaim Calais or annex La Rochelle?

As for the HRE, that's my main topic of interest in all this. Something to consider is the extra-legal taxation that the Emperor allowed during the war. Would it be able to continue or would the Princes be able to overrule it? Another thing is the estates themselves. The Emperor deposed the Dukes of Mecklenburg for siding with Denmark and replaced them with Wallenstein. Could the Emperor attempt to annex some Protestant lands directly and rule them via Stadtholders/Governors/Viceroys (ex: annexing Pomerania to the Habsburg monarchy)? After looking at the peace of Prague, I'd guess that the permanent peace settlement would look similar, although with less concessions towards the Electors and the retention of the Edict of Restitution. That in and of itself makes things interesting. Like could the Archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Bremen be re-catholicized, not unlike Bohemia and Austria were OTL? If Catholicism is back on the rise in Germany, I'd bet we could see some minor Princes return to the faith out of self-interest and a chance to dominate region rivals. Look at the rivalry between the Kassal and Darmstadt branches of the House of Hesse. We could see the pro-Imperial Darmstadt branch convert.

I think we could also see the Imperial ban become the sentence on states that breach the imperial peace by allying with foreign states or with each other. Another possibility I've tentatively considered is what happened with the Palatinate and Bavaria. Could Protestants who side against the Emperor, like the Elector of Brandenburg, be replaced by a Prince form a Catholic branch of the dynasty, ie the Swabian Hohenzollerns? Or would that be a step too far? Finally, with the Emperor so obviously dominant by the wars end, would we see power in the Empire finally shift towards the crown over the princes? Some kind of early federal empire, similar to the later German Empire? BTW, what do you think the consequences would be for the Spanish Empire? Would the Habsburgs be able to keep Portugal? If Catalonia still revolted would the rebellion still drag out as long as it did? I can't help but wonder if, without the Franco-Spanish war Spain could successfully reform under Felipe IV?

I do think that this would indeed be a fascinating idea for a timeline. Sadly my hard-drive recently crashed, so my laptop's in the shop. And I'm also working on a (probably) short TL on the Comte de Chambord and a third Bourbon Restoration. But I definitely want to do something with this topic.
 
I see your point, but do you think that Sweden would have continued the war if France wasn't able to enter in 1635 or would they negotiate peace at Prague? So, if Gustavus lives and stays out of Germany what do you think his reign would look like? Would we see something like the later deluge of Karl X's reign, a war against Russia or more focus on domestic reforms? So no Swedish invasion means no later French intervention and possibly no Franco-Spanish war (1635-1659). I wonder if a French-Habsburg war was inevitable at that point (the fear of being surrounded on all sides would still exist, as would the resentment of Habsburg domination in Europe) or if Richelieu would instead focus his attention domestically. I wonder if England could get any concessions out of Paris? Perhaps reclaim Calais or annex La Rochelle?

I have a hard time seeing how Sweden gets out of the war since they were already so deeply involved. By that point a significant part of the Swedish economy was running on German plunder, so if the war ends in the mid 1630s they are going to be in significant trouble either way. The Peace of Prague was an attempt by the Habsburgs to end the internal aspects of the 30YW, and they specifically tried to keep outside influence out of the negotiations. I don't see the Swedes being part of the Prague Treaty, they would need a seperate agreement, and then it becomes a larger question of how many of the German states are able to intervene in the process and use it as a way of improving their positions.

If Gustavus lives and isn't involved in Germany he is likely to turn to any of his neighbours. The PLC had just been hammered and Denmark had just been defeated by the Emperor, so he likely goes after Denmark first and grabs what he can. The first Romanov is on the Russian throne at the moment and the Polish king Wladyslaw retained a claim as Tsar, so they are likely to continue feuding. When Sigismund dies Gustavus is likely to copy his OTL tactics and try to bring Russia and the Ottomans against the PLC, though this would likely be harder than in OTL without French negotiations to smooth the way. Gustavus is likely to attack the PLC on Sigismunds death either way, so we might indeed see something similar to the Deluges thirty years early. Gustavus was always more of a military leader than anything else so he likely leaves things in Oxenstierna's more than capable hands. With the significantly lessened strain on the Swedish economy you would likely see a number of domestic reforms and changes happen quicker than otherwise but I couldn't say for certain.

If the Anglo-French War is longer and more straining to France I doubt they would intervene in the HRE. Fighting the Spanish is another matter entirely and you might very well see a more confident French military depending on how much experience and success they experience against the English. I don't see how the English could win the Anglo-French war, but you could have relations with the Calvinists go in a number of different directions both good or bad for France.

You might want to consider what would happen with the Netherlands with all of these changes, because the 80YW should also be impacted signifcantly by these changes. I am not sure how though.

As for the HRE, that's my main topic of interest in all this. Something to consider is the extra-legal taxation that the Emperor allowed during the war. Would it be able to continue or would the Princes be able to overrule it? Another thing is the estates themselves. The Emperor deposed the Dukes of Mecklenburg for siding with Denmark and replaced them with Wallenstein. Could the Emperor attempt to annex some Protestant lands directly and rule them via Stadtholders/Governors/Viceroys (ex: annexing Pomerania to the Habsburg monarchy)? After looking at the peace of Prague, I'd guess that the permanent peace settlement would look similar, although with less concessions towards the Electors and the retention of the Edict of Restitution. That in and of itself makes things interesting. Like could the Archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Bremen be re-catholicized, not unlike Bohemia and Austria were OTL? If Catholicism is back on the rise in Germany, I'd bet we could see some minor Princes return to the faith out of self-interest and a chance to dominate region rivals. Look at the rivalry between the Kassal and Darmstadt branches of the House of Hesse. We could see the pro-Imperial Darmstadt branch convert.

What you need to remember is that the Emperor was forced to rely on many others to finance and lead the war effort for him. Maximillian of Bavaria and the Catholic League would be significantly stronger at this point in time compared to later due to their army being the main army on the Imperial side under Tilly, who in this case wouldn't have experienced defeat against GAII. Secondly Ferdinand would also owe a great deal to Wallenstein and would have a harder time finding a way to get rid of him without the defeats he experienced against the Swedes. Further you need to take into consideration that many of the states were highly sceptical of Ferdinand's willingness to compromise and were terrified that he would start conversion efforts as soon as possible. If Ferdinand pushes too far and doesn't reward his supporters well enough he risks either a rising of Northern Germany which had so far largely escaped devastation and as such stood quite strongly, or seeing either the League or Wallenstein army turn on him.

You could very well get a number of reconversions, but I think you need to consider the weakened position of the Emperor even if he is victorious at this point. He has just fought a decade-long internal war caused largely by peoples fears that he would start conversion efforts of the type he had in Austria, so his prestige and that of his house have all taken a beating. Further he had relied heavily on a large number of supporters who all expect to get their share from any final peace. The Treaty of Westphalia took almost a decade of effort to establish and I think a similar degree of complexity is present in this case.

The northern Germans had viewed the 30YW up to this point as being a response to the Defenestration and the reformed Germans' efforts to depose the Habsburgs. It was only after GAII got involved that they were dragged, however reluctantly, into the war. Before that the war was localized to Bohemia, Austria, Bavaria, the Palatinate and aroung Westphalia. At this point if Ferdinand can paint the war as being about treason and revolt rather than religious then he would likely be able to settle without largescale intervention by the neutral northern states.

I think we could also see the Imperial ban become the sentence on states that breach the imperial peace by allying with foreign states or with each other. Another possibility I've tentatively considered is what happened with the Palatinate and Bavaria. Could Protestants who side against the Emperor, like the Elector of Brandenburg, be replaced by a Prince form a Catholic branch of the dynasty, ie the Swabian Hohenzollerns? Or would that be a step too far? Finally, with the Emperor so obviously dominant by the wars end, would we see power in the Empire finally shift towards the crown over the princes? Some kind of early federal empire, similar to the later German Empire? BTW, what do you think the consequences would be for the Spanish Empire? Would the Habsburgs be able to keep Portugal? If Catalonia still revolted would the rebellion still drag out as long as it did? I can't help but wonder if, without the Franco-Spanish war Spain could successfully reform under Felipe IV?

I do think that this would indeed be a fascinating idea for a timeline. Sadly my hard-drive recently crashed, so my laptop's in the shop. And I'm also working on a (probably) short TL on the Comte de Chambord and a third Bourbon Restoration. But I definitely want to do something with this topic.

You need to remember that the 30YW before everything else was a failure of the Habsburg's prestige, legitimacy and authority. Any of the suggestions you have made would be viewed as further breaches to German Liberty and significant overreach. The Emperor was seriously limited in his ability to make changes or replacements in the way you suggested. The winners in this conflict would probably be the Catholic League more than anyone else. This result would probably set the stage for a return to the status quo rather than a fundamental shift in power that OTL represented. At this point in time only Denmark had been involved and that was officially mostly about control of duchies and bishoprics in northern Germany.

I think there is a lot of potential for a TL here, but it would more than likely be a complete monster of a timeline to keep track of. So much is predicated on a complex web of interactions and transactions that are very difficult to keep track of at the best of times. But I think it could be fantastic with enough effort.

The TL on the Comte de Chambord sounds interesting, I will keep an eye out for it.
 
I have a hard time seeing how Sweden gets out of the war since they were already so deeply involved. By that point a significant part of the Swedish economy was running on German plunder, so if the war ends in the mid 1630s they are going to be in significant trouble either way. The Peace of Prague was an attempt by the Habsburgs to end the internal aspects of the 30YW, and they specifically tried to keep outside influence out of the negotiations. I don't see the Swedes being part of the Prague Treaty, they would need a seperate agreement, and then it becomes a larger question of how many of the German states are able to intervene in the process and use it as a way of improving their positions.

If Gustavus lives and isn't involved in Germany he is likely to turn to any of his neighbours. The PLC had just been hammered and Denmark had just been defeated by the Emperor, so he likely goes after Denmark first and grabs what he can. The first Romanov is on the Russian throne at the moment and the Polish king Wladyslaw retained a claim as Tsar, so they are likely to continue feuding. When Sigismund dies Gustavus is likely to copy his OTL tactics and try to bring Russia and the Ottomans against the PLC, though this would likely be harder than in OTL without French negotiations to smooth the way. Gustavus is likely to attack the PLC on Sigismunds death either way, so we might indeed see something similar to the Deluges thirty years early. Gustavus was always more of a military leader than anything else so he likely leaves things in Oxenstierna's more than capable hands. With the significantly lessened strain on the Swedish economy you would likely see a number of domestic reforms and changes happen quicker than otherwise but I couldn't say for certain.

If the Anglo-French War is longer and more straining to France I doubt they would intervene in the HRE. Fighting the Spanish is another matter entirely and you might very well see a more confident French military depending on how much experience and success they experience against the English. I don't see how the English could win the Anglo-French war, but you could have relations with the Calvinists go in a number of different directions both good or bad for France.

You might want to consider what would happen with the Netherlands with all of these changes, because the 80YW should also be impacted signifcantly by these changes. I am not sure how though.

Do you think the Swedes would necessarily win against the Commonwealth or did the Polish have a fighting chance? I mean several of the battles in the Polish-Swedish war ended in Polish victories..... I guess it depends on the Polish generalship. I wonder if we could see an attempted Polish conquest of Prussia? Though that would depend on Brandenburg getting involved in this TTL Northern war. I suppose that if the Hohenzollerns are blocked from the Pomeranian inheritance we could see them attempt to link Prussia and Brandenburg like they did later in OTL. Hm, could a Polish-Russian alliance against Sweden be in the cards? On the domestic front, would we see an earlier Reduction of fiefs or was that only necessary due to alienation of lands during the Thirty years' war.

From what I can tell, the best bet to make the Anglo-French war longer and better for England would be to eliminate the Duke of Buckingham early on (maybe die in battle or from illness) and replace him with a more skilled commander. Maybe the Earl of Essex or another of the later Civil war commanders, IDK which exactly. If the English can save La Rochelle then the Huguenots would remain a significant thorn in the side of the French Crown, possibly enough to remain a state within a state. I can't see the French getting involved in a major foreign war with a potential fifth column in their ranks. At the least I can see the Huguenot coastal territories emerge as English Protectorates. On the flip side though I wonder how an alliance with Calvinists would effect Charles I's Arminianism religious policies.

As to the Dutch, not entirely sure about the changes there. I don't know as much about them during this point in history as I do about Spain, England and Austria, mainly because they never interested me as much. But an interesting jumping off point would be to have the Dutch fail to capture the Spanish treasure fleet in 1628. That keeps the Spanish more financially stable in terms of credit and keeps the Dutch from being able to take the fortress-city of 's-Hertogenbosch. This keeps the geo-political situation in the Northern Netherlands firmly in favor of the Habsburgs, especially with Breda under their control.

What you need to remember is that the Emperor was forced to rely on many others to finance and lead the war effort for him. Maximillian of Bavaria and the Catholic League would be significantly stronger at this point in time compared to later due to their army being the main army on the Imperial side under Tilly, who in this case wouldn't have experienced defeat against GAII. Secondly Ferdinand would also owe a great deal to Wallenstein and would have a harder time finding a way to get rid of him without the defeats he experienced against the Swedes. Further you need to take into consideration that many of the states were highly sceptical of Ferdinand's willingness to compromise and were terrified that he would start conversion efforts as soon as possible. If Ferdinand pushes too far and doesn't reward his supporters well enough he risks either a rising of Northern Germany which had so far largely escaped devastation and as such stood quite strongly, or seeing either the League or Wallenstein army turn on him.

You could very well get a number of reconversions, but I think you need to consider the weakened position of the Emperor even if he is victorious at this point. He has just fought a decade-long internal war caused largely by peoples fears that he would start conversion efforts of the type he had in Austria, so his prestige and that of his house have all taken a beating. Further he had relied heavily on a large number of supporters who all expect to get their share from any final peace. The Treaty of Westphalia took almost a decade of effort to establish and I think a similar degree of complexity is present in this case.

The northern Germans had viewed the 30YW up to this point as being a response to the Defenestration and the reformed Germans' efforts to depose the Habsburgs. It was only after GAII got involved that they were dragged, however reluctantly, into the war. Before that the war was localized to Bohemia, Austria, Bavaria, the Palatinate and around Westphalia. At this point if Ferdinand can paint the war as being about treason and revolt rather than religious then he would likely be able to settle without largescale intervention by the neutral northern states.

Not necessarily. From what I can tell the Imperial army was still much larger than the Liga one (110,000 to 30,000) and if push came to shove the Imperialists are likely to win. How likely are are the Princes to rick a war with the Emperor at this point? I mean the advantage is with Ferdinand II and any who directly attacked him would legally be rebels, subject to the Imperial ban (not unlike the Palatinate). In this case Bavaria basically let the genie out of the bottle by demanding and receiving the Palatinate and its Electorship. But I personally don't see Ferdinand II going to far, just pointing out that if he did, the advantage lays with him.

As for his supporters, they were already in the possess of being rewarded by 1630. Bavaria can't expect much more than what they had, Saxony would still get lower and upper Lusatia, not sure about Brandenburg though. Further Pomerania could be in the cards, but with the POD creating an Imperial Baltic fleet it might end up directly under the Emperor, with lands awarded to various supporters but the Duchy itself remaining Habsburg. Considering Brandenburg's relatively minor role at this point they can't expect all that much. I do wonder if we could see a conversion from the Elector of Brandenburg? Probably not but it could be in the cards if it would help him gain Pomerania.

Finally, to the North and treason. The Emperor was actually doing just that. That's how they justified the transfer of the Palatinate and Mecklenburg: their rulers committed treason against the Emperor and had therefore forfeited their possessions. Of course the real question is the Edict of Restitution. Is it fully implemented or is it modified? Or hell is it withdrawn like OTL?

You need to remember that the 30YW before everything else was a failure of the Habsburg's prestige, legitimacy and authority. Any of the suggestions you have made would be viewed as further breaches to German Liberty and significant overreach. The Emperor was seriously limited in his ability to make changes or replacements in the way you suggested. The winners in this conflict would probably be the Catholic League more than anyone else. This result would probably set the stage for a return to the status quo rather than a fundamental shift in power that OTL represented. At this point in time only Denmark had been involved and that was officially mostly about control of duchies and bishoprics in northern Germany.

I think there is a lot of potential for a TL here, but it would more than likely be a complete monster of a timeline to keep track of. So much is predicated on a complex web of interactions and transactions that are very difficult to keep track of at the best of times. But I think it could be fantastic with enough effort.

The TL on the Comte de Chambord sounds interesting, I will keep an eye out for it.

What if the Emperor were to call an Imperial Diet and use it as a vehicle to reform the constitution to allow such things to happen legally. After all, for at least a few of my suggestions, the Princes themselves had let already let the genie out of the bottle. They can't claim the Emperor is violating their rights and liberties if they themselves started it. While replacing a Protestant with a Catholic is no doubt a step to far (unless of course its a situation like that of the Palatinate), I can see the Imperial Ban be applied more liberally than before against estates that break the peace or formally ally with foreign invaders/. Realistically the Princes shouldn't object to such consequences for treason. After all, its a standard sentence across the rest of Europe.

As to a return to the status quo, unlikely. Like I said, the genie's out of the bottle: you can't put it back in. I think we'd see something quite similar to the Peace of Prague, just more in favor of the Emperor and some kind of compromise in regards to the Edict of Restitution. Something that allows a case by case situation on the various ecclesiastical estates while still allowing the Emperor to save face. Maybe a new court set up to specifically deal with the Ecclesiastical Reservation cases? Of course the northern Bishopric administrators that sided with Denmark will lose their offices and be replaced by Catholics (this was expected before the Edict and was to be considered acceptable). We'd also likely see the counter-reformation in full force in both Bremen and Madgeburg. Would create tensions in the North but would likely stick, like it did in Bohemia and Austria. Finally, we would see a shift in parts of Northern Germany to favor the Catholics.
 
The Polish do have a fighting chance against the Swedes. The battle of Oliwa in 1627 is a good example of this fighting chance that they have and, in my opinion, definitely showed the Swedes that they did not necessarily control the coastline. However, IIRC, the Poles did not necessarily capitalize on that victory by building up something resembling a navy or maintaining what ships that they had. ((OOC: One of my current projects is involving an AH vignette about events leading up to this battle, the battle itself, and some events after the fact.)) The PLC in OTL was able to hold off the Swedes, Russia, and the Ottomans. There were some internal issues that the PLC had to deal with, however, and reforms wouldn't be made until it was too late in 1791.
 
Do you think the Swedes would necessarily win against the Commonwealth or did the Polish have a fighting chance? I mean several of the battles in the Polish-Swedish war ended in Polish victories..... I guess it depends on the Polish generalship. I wonder if we could see an attempted Polish conquest of Prussia? Though that would depend on Brandenburg getting involved in this TTL Northern war. I suppose that if the Hohenzollerns are blocked from the Pomeranian inheritance we could see them attempt to link Prussia and Brandenburg like they did later in OTL. Hm, could a Polish-Russian alliance against Sweden be in the cards? On the domestic front, would we see an earlier Reduction of fiefs or was that only necessary due to alienation of lands during the Thirty years' war.

From what I can tell, the best bet to make the Anglo-French war longer and better for England would be to eliminate the Duke of Buckingham early on (maybe die in battle or from illness) and replace him with a more skilled commander. Maybe the Earl of Essex or another of the later Civil war commanders, IDK which exactly. If the English can save La Rochelle then the Huguenots would remain a significant thorn in the side of the French Crown, possibly enough to remain a state within a state. I can't see the French getting involved in a major foreign war with a potential fifth column in their ranks. At the least I can see the Huguenot coastal territories emerge as English Protectorates. On the flip side though I wonder how an alliance with Calvinists would effect Charles I's Arminianism religious policies.

As to the Dutch, not entirely sure about the changes there. I don't know as much about them during this point in history as I do about Spain, England and Austria, mainly because they never interested me as much. But an interesting jumping off point would be to have the Dutch fail to capture the Spanish treasure fleet in 1628. That keeps the Spanish more financially stable in terms of credit and keeps the Dutch from being able to take the fortress-city of 's-Hertogenbosch. This keeps the geo-political situation in the Northern Netherlands firmly in favor of the Habsburgs, especially with Breda under their control.

I think the Swedes would have a harder time winning against the Commonwealth than during the Deluges, but I do think that they would end up winning, for no other reason than that the PLC was in trouble with just about every neighbour they had and the Swedes had been building up a incredibly effective military force that was only just reaching peak performance having learned a great deal from previous mistakes. I just don't see the Poles being able to put together anything that could truly compete with what the Swedes had in their arsenal at this point.

I think the PLC in general would be too busy with their encroaching neighbours to try for Prussia at this point. The Russians are never going to cooperate with the Poles as long as there is a Polish claim on the Russian throne and there are simply too many benefits to Russia attacking the PLC to ignore. Brandenburg might, as you mention elsewhere, be tempted to go for Prussia, and if the PLC seems weakened or distracted enough I can see them jumping on the growing bandwagon. This is only if the situation in the HRE permits the Hohenzollerns to attempt this.

Killing of Buckingham would definately be a start and your other suggestions for how that situation would evolve seem like a good way of acheiving the goal you have set. Without La Rochelle's fall the Hugenots remain a major threat to the French Monarchy and they are left almost completely paralyzed, as they had for the last half-century. I don't think the Huguenots would become English protectorates, more likely they are able to further entrench their hard-won gains from the French Wars of Religion. One consideration you might have here is that by having Richelieu fail in this task, he could end up disgraced and lose a significant amount of his influence on events. I am not sure who would pick up the reins with Richelieu in disgrace, but it is hard to imagine anyone truly being able to do as good of a job.

I don't really know the specifics with regards to the Netherlands either. But having them never quite sally forth would be interesting. If you have Richelieu disgraced from the Anglo-French War then you might also want to consider the effects on the War of Mantuan Succession which he was heavily involved in escalating and which stretched the Spanish resources almost to the breaking point.

At this point I think we could very well end up with an early and significantly cheaper end to the 30YW, a shortened or completely butterflied War of Mantuan Succession, a improved situation in the 80YW for the Spanish, a English victory/lack of French victory in the Anglo-French War, and potentially anything from an Early Northern War to an Early Swedish Deluge or Wars of Polish partition (unlikely to go that far in any case, but might be interesting to see what happens if the PLC is dogpiled by Russia, Sweden, Brandenburg, and the Ottomans). I think this might all be very interesting :D .

Not necessarily. From what I can tell the Imperial army was still much larger than the Liga one (110,000 to 30,000) and if push came to shove the Imperialists are likely to win. How likely are are the Princes to rick a war with the Emperor at this point? I mean the advantage is with Ferdinand II and any who directly attacked him would legally be rebels, subject to the Imperial ban (not unlike the Palatinate). In this case Bavaria basically let the genie out of the bottle by demanding and receiving the Palatinate and its Electorship. But I personally don't see Ferdinand II going to far, just pointing out that if he did, the advantage lays with him.

As for his supporters, they were already in the possess of being rewarded by 1630. Bavaria can't expect much more than what they had, Saxony would still get lower and upper Lusatia, not sure about Brandenburg though. Further Pomerania could be in the cards, but with the POD creating an Imperial Baltic fleet it might end up directly under the Emperor, with lands awarded to various supporters but the Duchy itself remaining Habsburg. Considering Brandenburg's relatively minor role at this point they can't expect all that much. I do wonder if we could see a conversion from the Elector of Brandenburg? Probably not but it could be in the cards if it would help him gain Pomerania.

Finally, to the North and treason. The Emperor was actually doing just that. That's how they justified the transfer of the Palatinate and Mecklenburg: their rulers committed treason against the Emperor and had therefore forfeited their possessions. Of course the real question is the Edict of Restitution. Is it fully implemented or is it modified? Or hell is it withdrawn like OTL?

I wasn't talking about out-and-out warfare, but you might see Ferdinand on the back foot if Saxony or Brandenburg suddenly feel that they might be next. The use of the Imperial Ban and confiscations of rebel territory probably happens, and a significant degree of redistribution is likely to occur. I just think that Ferdinand would need to be very careful about alienating the neutrals or his allies. At this point the war had been somewhat limited in the areas that were affected and the Edict of Restitution seems to me to be more of a stick to hit his opponents with when pushing them into more agreeable positions.

Bavaria and Saxony probably retain the gain they have from the Edict, I don't see the Palatinate being given back to that branch of the Wittelsbachs any time soon ITTL. I am not sure about Brandenburg's religious position, it might go either way depending on how large of an enducement is offered (Pomerania) and what other opportunities present themselves (Prussia), but if either is offered I think we might very well see the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg go Catholic for a while. Ferdinand will need to get the Hohenzollerns on his side in some way, because otherwise he leaves himself vulnerable in Northern Germany.

I really don't think the Edict of Restitution gets revoked in this case, adjusted and the areas in question might change but Ferdinand has absolutely no reason to withdraw it at this point, and with the way the large German states stand to gain from other land awards I don't see how anyone could build enough support to repeal it any time soon.

What if the Emperor were to call an Imperial Diet and use it as a vehicle to reform the constitution to allow such things to happen legally. After all, for at least a few of my suggestions, the Princes themselves had let already let the genie out of the bottle. They can't claim the Emperor is violating their rights and liberties if they themselves started it. While replacing a Protestant with a Catholic is no doubt a step to far (unless of course its a situation like that of the Palatinate), I can see the Imperial Ban be applied more liberally than before against estates that break the peace or formally ally with foreign invaders/. Realistically the Princes shouldn't object to such consequences for treason. After all, its a standard sentence across the rest of Europe.

As to a return to the status quo, unlikely. Like I said, the genie's out of the bottle: you can't put it back in. I think we'd see something quite similar to the Peace of Prague, just more in favor of the Emperor and some kind of compromise in regards to the Edict of Restitution. Something that allows a case by case situation on the various ecclesiastical estates while still allowing the Emperor to save face. Maybe a new court set up to specifically deal with the Ecclesiastical Reservation cases? Of course the northern Bishopric administrators that sided with Denmark will lose their offices and be replaced by Catholics (this was expected before the Edict and was to be considered acceptable). We'd also likely see the counter-reformation in full force in both Bremen and Madgeburg. Would create tensions in the North but would likely stick, like it did in Bohemia and Austria. Finally, we would see a shift in parts of Northern Germany to favor the Catholics.

Have you considered having Ferdinand try to establish a replacement for The Golden Bull of 1356? At this point, as you mention, the genie is out of the bottle, so there might be a significant degree of interest in establishing a new Status Quo that the Imperials and Neutrals would be willing to live with.

There might just be enough impetus from the instability of the 30YW that something like this might occur. The only real problem I can see is that Ferdinand always seemed a bit ungracious in victory, and might try to exploit the situation for all it is worth. His son Ferdinand III might be a better fit if any sort of equitable agreement is to be established. I think there is a significant danger that Ferdinand might just take that single step too far and have everything collapse (not militarily but politically). Even at the best of times Ferdinand II was viewed as being rather difficult to work with, and most seem to have been rather unnerved by him.
 
Another consequence of the Dutch not capturing the Spanish treasure fleet of 1628, is that the Palatinate's Erbprinz doesn't drown in the Harlemmermeer going to see it. So, that could have interesting consequences in the long run with Friedrich VI of the Palatinate rather than Karl I Ludwig and his bigamous marriages.
 
Have you considered having Ferdinand try to establish a replacement for The Golden Bull of 1356? At this point, as you mention, the genie is out of the bottle, so there might be a significant degree of interest in establishing a new Status Quo that the Imperials and Neutrals would be willing to live with.

There might just be enough impetus from the instability of the 30YW that something like this might occur. The only real problem I can see is that Ferdinand always seemed a bit ungracious in victory, and might try to exploit the situation for all it is worth. His son Ferdinand III might be a better fit if any sort of equitable agreement is to be established. I think there is a significant danger that Ferdinand might just take that single step too far and have everything collapse (not militarily but politically). Even at the best of times Ferdinand II was viewed as being rather difficult to work with, and most seem to have been rather unnerved by him.

Replace as in all out replacement? New electors named etc? Or replacement simply as in restructuring? To try and regain some sort of equilibrium favorable to the Habsburgs?
 
Replace as in all out replacement? New electors named etc? Or replacement simply as in restructuring? To try and regain some sort of equilibrium favorable to the Habsburgs?

I am not sure how unlikely a full replacement would be, but a restructuring and in-depth changes to the Bull that helps rebuild Imperial authority and establishes a new equilibrium that favours the Habsburgs should be possible.
 
Top