Thirty Years War

Suppose Frederick, Count of Pfalz, or Gustavus Adolphus win a total victory. Maybe Frederick wins the support of Saxony and destroys the Emperor's army, or maybe Gustavus completely crushes the Imperial army at Lutzen. Could they actually shatter the HRE, and form their own Holy Protestant Empire (with Frederick or Gustavus, as head) in northern Germany? And what would be the consequences in Austria itself (apparently, parts of Austria were already Protestant)? Could this simply destroy the Imperial branch of the Habsburgs, and send the Catholics into a tizzy? Who would the Catholics turn to for help, in this state? Spain? France? Bavaria? Who was in a position to take up the leadership of the Catholic league, if the power of the HRE is broken?
 
France wouldn never intervene to help the Habsbourg at that time.

Agree that France would not help the Habsburgs of the time. But France would also be worried about a large Protestant power on its flank. If the HRE is shattered by Gustavus, France will have to worry about the Protestants sitting on the Rhine. In this case, it won't be France helping the Habsburgs, it will be the Catholic German states running to France for help. Could this result in French supported Catholic regimes in south Germany?
 
Would you actualy get a big protestant block? Personally I believe it more likely you get a bunch of stronger protestant nations (Sweden, the Netherlands, maybe Denmark, Brandenburg etc.) and a whole bunch of smaller protestant nations that are more or less independent, just like the OTL HRE. A main motivation of the thirty year war was to limit the power of the emperor and gain more independence for the principalities. I realy doubt everyone would suddenly follow some protestant emperor.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Agree that France would not help the Habsburgs of the time. But France would also be worried about a large Protestant power on its flank. If the HRE is shattered by Gustavus, France will have to worry about the Protestants sitting on the Rhine.
No France would be happy to have protestants on the Rheine and not the Habsburgs

In this case, it won't be France helping the Habsburgs, it will be the Catholic German states running to France for help. Could this result in French supported Catholic regimes in south Germany?
No I can't see this happening unless G2A begins a protestant inquisition and burn catholics at the stake. France would either rebuff them or make an agreement with G2A of spheres of interest.
 
Would you actualy get a big protestant block? Personally I believe it more likely you get a bunch of stronger protestant nations (Sweden, the Netherlands, maybe Denmark, Brandenburg etc.) and a whole bunch of smaller protestant nations that are more or less independent, just like the OTL HRE.

Gustavus was not exactly your laid back ruler. He liked to remain in control. After having fought so hard, I think he might try to capitalise on the Protestant Union, with the members including moderately large states like Saxony, Brandenburg, and Bohemia (would Austria also be a Protestant member, under a new duke?) and a whole bunchof small German states under his leadership. I think he would also like to take control of the Baltic coast of Germany (as much as he can get away with, anyway).

.
A main motivation of the thirty year war was to limit the power of the emperor and gain more independence for the principalities. I realy doubt everyone would suddenly follow some protestant emperor.
This might happen if Frederick wins. But I am not sure this will be the case if Gustavus wins. The motivations of Gustavus weren't the goals of the smaller German states and religious freedom, while important to him, was not more imporant than his control of the Baltic coast, and influence in Germany. If he really beats down the Emperor, he will probably try to capitalise on his victory and bring protestant states of Germany under his influence, through the Protestant Union.
 
Last edited:
No France would be happy to have protestants on the Rheine and not the Habsburgs

Care to explain this? While the Habsburgs were a very serious threat, the Protestant Union is also a nuisance for France, what with the Calvinist cities of Henry of Navarre still in kinda-sorta rebellion. The siege of Rochelle had just concluded (1628-1629), and a major Protestant power on the flank of France would be a worrisome spectacle. The Huguenots would remain a problem for France for quite some time to come, even IOTL. While France might not care about a few tiny Protestant states on the Rhine, it would be worried about the Protestant Union, coming up as an independent entity. Why would France be happy to see a major Protestant power replacing the Habsburgs on the Rhine?

No I can't see this happening unless G2A begins a protestant inquisition and burn catholics at the stake. France would either rebuff them or make an agreement with G2A of spheres of interest.

I wish I could be as confident as you about this. But if the Catholic German states, despairing of the empire to protect them went to France for help, France might be tempted to change sides, and now champion Catholic rights. The temptation to lead a Union/Empire has always been strong in all major powers.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Why would France be happy to see a major Protestant power replacing the Habsburgs on the Rhine?

Because it's not ruled by Habsburgs.

I wish I could be as confident as you about this. But if the Catholic German states, despairing of the empire to protect them went to France for help, France might be tempted to change sides, and now champion Catholic rights. The temptation to lead a Union/Empire has always been strong in all major powers.
1st Rule of 17th century French diplomacy: Oppose the Habsburgs. If it hurts the Habsburgs? Go for it. If it helps the Habsburgs? Oppose it.

I believe you're overthinking this, France was ruled by Armand-Jean du Plessis and everything he did was to help France by opposing the Habsburgs.

The siege of La Rochelle was more about breaking the Hugenouts political power and capability of resisting the cetralisation efforts rather then the religious question.
 
Because it's not ruled by Habsburgs.

1st Rule of 17th century French diplomacy: Oppose the Habsburgs. If it hurts the Habsburgs? Go for it. If it helps the Habsburgs? Oppose it.

I believe you're overthinking this, France was ruled by Armand-Jean du Plessis and everything he did was to help France by opposing the Habsburgs.

The siege of La Rochelle was more about breaking the Hugenouts political power and capability of resisting the cetralisation efforts rather then the religious question.

While France had a morbid fear of the Habsburgs, it was not the be all and end all of their diplomacy. And the other way was true as well. Spain, and France cooperated in taking down La Rochelle - there were several Spanish ships helping Cardinal Richelieu during the siege (they could cooperate against the common enemy - the English, in this case). And Richelieu chartered Dutch ships to transport French troops to La Rochelle. It is a testament to his diplomatic acumen that he could manage all these contradictions.

I guess I was not clear enough in my scenario. In the scenario I am outlining, the Swedes have won a total victory and the Imperial army has ceased to exist. Could the Swedes have taken Vienna in this situation? I am no expert in the Thirty Years War, but I seem to recollect that Tilly was dead and Wallenstein's army was the last force the Imperial side could muster (without the Spanish aid). If at Lutzen Gustavus Adolphus had won a total victory, he could probably have moved against Vienna and forced a decision. In this situation, the Habsburgs eastern lands (Bohemia, Silesia, Austria) are all gone - or will soon be, since their situation is simply untenable. With the HRE ceasing to exist de facto, and the Protestant Union sitting on the Rhine, the French will only have exchanged the well for the wolf. France's interests were served by having the Habsburgs' power cut down, and breaking the Habsburg encirclement of France, not by the Habsburgs replaced by an equally powerful Protestant power, that could turn hostile, on their eastern flank. Also, once France's utility is exhausted, and the Protestant Union is de facto ruling all of Germany (except for a few Catholic states in the south and west), would France be equally complacent about Swedish power? And, in this situation, why would the Swedes even want to negotiate with France for a balance of power or spheres of interest? They have it all, already.
 
Gustavus Adolfus would not have a free hand for too long.

First, he could not count on the loyalty of the two strongest protestant states: John George I of Saxony wanted to be an imperialist throughout the war, and deserted the Swedes as soon as it was safe to do so; George William of Brandenburg hadn't much of a clue what he wanted to do, but his successor (as of late 1640) Frederick William looked out for Brandenburg's interests exclusively (and after the war, was constantly looking for an opportunity to deprive Sweden of Pomerania).

Also, for all his genius, Gustavus could have achieved nothing without the financial subsidies he received from France. If Richelieu or Mazarin cut off the cash flow, Gustavus would eventually have to retreat.
 
Gustavus Adolfus would not have a free hand for too long.

First, he could not count on the loyalty of the two strongest protestant states: John George I of Saxony wanted to be an imperialist throughout the war, and deserted the Swedes as soon as it was safe to do so; George William of Brandenburg hadn't much of a clue what he wanted to do, but his successor (as of late 1640) Frederick William looked out for Brandenburg's interests exclusively (and after the war, was constantly looking for an opportunity to deprive Sweden of Pomerania).

I have no doubt that they were all looking out for their own interests. But if Gustavus Adolphus is fully successful, and crushes the Emperor's armies, would they desert the winner? What could they hope to win alongside Gustavus, and what would they get if they deserted him? Which brings me directly to my next point - what would be the best treaty Gustavus could win? If Gustavus crushes Wallenstein at Lutzen and marches on Vienna, what would the Habsburgs be willing to concede at this proverbial pistol point? Could he force the HRE to recognise him as the head of the Protestant Union of which all HRE Protestant states are members, and give up Bohemia (and maybe Austria, without Tirol or Styria) to his choice candidates? Is this too brutal a treaty for the Habsburgs to concede, if both Bohemia and Austria are won? Or more ideally - dissolve the HRE? Note - I make no assertion. I am no expert on the 30 years war. I am just envisioning the best scenario for Gustavus.

Also, for all his genius, Gustavus could have achieved nothing without the financial subsidies he received from France. If Richelieu or Mazarin cut off the cash flow, Gustavus would eventually have to retreat.

While the war lasted, this is no doubt true. Even Oxenstierna, who prized Swedish independence, and loathed the French subsidies (the Swedish armies were debauched by French gold, to use Oxenstierna's charming expression) was forced to go to the French aid after Nordlingen. But if Gustavus crushes the Emperor's armies, and achieves his desired peace, would it not solve his financial problems as well? Or are there other factors I am missing?
 
How well did Lutheran protestants (such as those in Denmark, Sweden, and most of the protestant-dominated parts of Germany) actually get on with Calvinist protestants (such as those in France and Geneva) in those days? Would they see each other as natural allies, so that France would have to worry seriously about the suggested new Lutheran power aiding the Huguenots, or was it more of a three-way Lutheran/Calvinist/RC rivalry instead?
 
Gustav II Adolf is the man with the army, he'll be dictating the terms. It is possible that he'll crown himself Emperor and protector of all protestants - and have a HRE of sorts, but made up of protestants. Austria will not be part of it. The Emperor will not give up his heraditory lands, and the French will not support it. While the French would love to have a power on the other side of the Habsburgs strong enough to keep them busy, they don't want to replace the Habsburgs with something else.

With a Swedish victroy at Lützen 1632 and a march 1633 and another victory in Bavaria or Bohemia, the Emperor could probably be made to make peace along the lines of the 1648 OTL treaty. Sweden gets Closer Pommerania, Brandenburg gets Further Pommerania. Sweden gets Bremen and control of the tolls of the rivers in northern Germany through that and Wismar.

Then Sweden will force Denmark into this protestant alliance or Empire, and plucking everything north of the Sound from it in the process. That will be a tough war, but Sweden is probably capable of doing it, as they were during Torstensson's war 1643-45.

Next up is the cancellation of the cease fire with Poland 1635. At this time, Sweden holds Fischhausen, Lochstädt, Memel, Elbing, Braunsberg and Pillau and collect tolls from them.

I guess a joint Swedo-Saxonian-Brandenburgian invasion of Poland is possible at this point.

The question is if Gustav II Adolf will have time to sire more children, when and how he dies and if he'll allow Brandenburg to absorb Ducal Prussia. Perhaps he will, but Sweden takes Courland and Danzig?
 
I have no doubt that they were all looking out for their own interests. But if Gustavus Adolphus is fully successful, and crushes the Emperor's armies, would they desert the winner? What could they hope to win alongside Gustavus, and what would they get if they deserted him?

Their positions weren't totally cynical -- John George clearly wanted to be loyal to the emperor, but events spiralled out of his control and at times he ended up in rebellion anyway. To answer your question, his actions during the war suggest that he wouldn't desert the Swedes at a time that would provoke a Swedish invasion of Saxony when it had no ally strong enough to fight off the Swedes, but might do if the opportunity presented itself. If Gustavus thinks a Saxon alliance is worth it, he could grant Saxony some rich territory from Bohemia (maybe Silesia), so that it would be hard to go back to the Hapsburg side.

However it plays out, one day the Germans are going to resent having a foreign ruler.

Which brings me directly to my next point - what would be the best treaty Gustavus could win? If Gustavus crushes Wallenstein at Lutzen and marches on Vienna, what would the Habsburgs be willing to concede at this proverbial pistol point? Could he force the HRE to recognise him as the head of the Protestant Union of which all HRE Protestant states are members, and give up Bohemia (and maybe Austria, without Tirol or Styria) to his choice candidates? Is this too brutal a treaty for the Habsburgs to concede, if both Bohemia and Austria are won? Or more ideally - dissolve the HRE? Note - I make no assertion. I am no expert on the 30 years war. I am just envisioning the best scenario for Gustavus.

Protestant Union: No problem.

Loss of Bohemia: Painful, but without the ability to resist, I think the Hapsburgs would have to fold. By this time, however, the Bohemian protestants had been expelled so imposing Frederick V or another Swedish candidate would be a traumatic procedure. Which goes to your last point about whether Sweden would still have a need for French gold.


Loss of Austria: They'd never agree. The Hapsburgs would just go into exile and hope that their Spanish relatives could take the lead in restoring them.

Dissolution of HRE: I suppose it could happen but I'm not sure anyone wanted that outcome. Ferdinand II was in late middle age by this stage, so he could be allowed to live out his reign. Given the disaster his reign had turned into, it's reasonably likely that a non-Hapsburg could be elected after he died.
 
Last edited:
How well did Lutheran protestants (such as those in Denmark, Sweden, and most of the protestant-dominated parts of Germany) actually get on with Calvinist protestants (such as those in France and Geneva) in those days? Would they see each other as natural allies, so that France would have to worry seriously about the suggested new Lutheran power aiding the Huguenots, or was it more of a three-way Lutheran/Calvinist/RC rivalry instead?

The relationships between the Calvinists and the Protestants seem to have been on a similar footing as between the Catholics and the other two, and they were all forever baiting each other. The Visitationskommission (supreme judicial appeals and implementation authority in the HRE) was ruined in a triangular fight between the three groups, and the secularisations that had occurred since 1552 were to be restored, except that the Calvinists would not agree to the restoration of Lutheran religious houses, so the matter lay in abeyance.

In the aftermath of the death of the duke of Julich-Cleves, when both the claimants were Lutheran (Elector of Brandenburg, and Palatine Count of Neuburg), the claims were opposed by both Catholics and Calvinists (neither would allow Lutherans to assume the duchy).

But then - the Calvinist Dutch had no problems transporting French troops to La Rochelle to wage war against their Huguenot co-religionists (they soothed their consciences by forbidding the French to hold mass and sermons on their ships).
 
Gustav II Adolf is the man with the army, he'll be dictating the terms. It is possible that he'll crown himself Emperor and protector of all protestants - and have a HRE of sorts, but made up of protestants. Austria will not be part of it. The Emperor will not give up his heraditory lands, and the French will not support it. While the French would love to have a power on the other side of the Habsburgs strong enough to keep them busy, they don't want to replace the Habsburgs with something else.

With a Swedish victroy at Lützen 1632 and a march 1633 and another victory in Bavaria or Bohemia, the Emperor could probably be made to make peace along the lines of the 1648 OTL treaty. Sweden gets Closer Pommerania, Brandenburg gets Further Pommerania. Sweden gets Bremen and control of the tolls of the rivers in northern Germany through that and Wismar.

Then Sweden will force Denmark into this protestant alliance or Empire, and plucking everything north of the Sound from it in the process. That will be a tough war, but Sweden is probably capable of doing it, as they were during Torstensson's war 1643-45.

Why would Sweden want Denmark in the Union? As long as Sweden is top dog in the Union, Sweden can be the new Habsburgs for the Protestant Union. Would not admitting Denmark mean having to share power uneasily with the Danes? The Danes, even if they were defeated (and that is not certain), would be contenders for the leadership of the Protestant Union, would they not?

The question is if Gustav II Adolf will have time to sire more children, when and how he dies and if he'll allow Brandenburg to absorb Ducal Prussia. Perhaps he will, but Sweden takes Courland and Danzig?

He already had a daughter (Kristina, I think she was called). Why would he want more children? The girl did live to adulthood, so would she not suffice?
 
Their positions weren't totally cynical -- John George clearly wanted to be loyal to the emperor, but events spiralled out of his control and at times he ended up in rebellion anyway. To answer your question, his actions during the war suggest that he wouldn't desert the Swedes at a time that would provoke a Swedish invasion of Saxony when it had no ally strong enough to fight off the Swedes, but might do if the opportunity presented itself. If Gustavus thinks a Saxon alliance is worth it, he could grant Saxony some rich territory from Bohemia (maybe Silesia), so that it would be hard to go back to the Hapsburg side.

Excellent! Thanks for the answer. The only problem with granting them Silesia is that Bohemia would not like its territory partitioned (This was one of the reasons why Frederick, Count of Pfalz, failed to get Saxony on his side - the Bohemians would not allow Lusatia to be given away to Saxony). But maybe, if Gustavus is successful, he can buy the cooperation of Saxony with some of Frederick's lands in Julich-Berg (or was it, Mark? - I don't remember offhand). Anyway, ITTL, with the defeat of the Bohemians earlier in the war, they may not be as able to protest as effectively as they did against Frederick.

However it plays out, one day the Germans are going to resent having a foreign ruler.

This is a given. Sweden's role in the Protestant Union is going to be less smooth than Austria's rule was in the HRE.

Protestant Union: No problem.

Loss of Bohemia: Painful, but without the ability to resist, I think the Hapsburgs would have to fold. By this time, however, the Bohemian protestants had been expelled so imposing Frederick V or another Swedish candidate would be a traumatic procedure. Which goes to your last point about whether Sweden would still have a need for French gold.


Loss of Austria: They'd never agree. The Hapsburgs would just go into exile and hope that their Spanish relatives could take the lead in restoring them.

Very good. We can take it as a working hypothesis then, that in the event of Swedish victory, most of northern Germany, including some moderately powerful states like Brandenburg, Pfalz, Bohemia and Saxony have been integrated in the Protestant Union, under the tutelage of Sweden (which would grab as much of the Baltic coast as it could get away with). Habsburgs retain Austria, Tyrol, Styria and parts of Swabia, and maybe even Alsace.

Dissolution of HRE: I suppose it could happen but I'm not sure anyone wanted that outcome. Ferdinand II was in late middle age by this stage, so he could be allowed to live out his reign. Given the disaster his reign had turned into, it's reasonably likely that a non-Hapsburg could be elected after he died.

It is not so much a case of Sweden disbanding the HRE, as the secession of most of Germany rendering its end an inevitability. This is like the Confederation of the Rhine come two centuries earlier. The Italian states were all Spain's backyard (Milan, Tuscany, and Naples, at least, were fully in the hands of the Spaniards). With Austria crippled, there is no HRE state capable of protecting the interests of the Catholics against the Swedes and the Protestant Union. Further, with Austria so badly weakened, I cannot see the Hungarians wanting a Habsburg ruler in this case (will they offer the crown to Maximilian of Bavaria?) I can easily see the Catholic remainder of Germany gravitating towards France or Spain (with Bavaria playing a vital role) in creating a Catholic League to protect the interests of the Catholics. Whether the Spanish Habsburgs will have much credibility left, with Habsburg defeats of this magnitude is, of course, open to question.
 
Why would Sweden want Denmark in the Union? As long as Sweden is top dog in the Union, Sweden can be the new Habsburgs for the Protestant Union. Would not admitting Denmark mean having to share power uneasily with the Danes? The Danes, even if they were defeated (and that is not certain), would be contenders for the leadership of the Protestant Union, would they not?



He already had a daughter (Kristina, I think she was called). Why would he want more children? The girl did live to adulthood, so would she not suffice?

With Denmark forced in, the protestant Empire, or what you want to call it, controls the Sound and the important toll from it. It was a HUGE cash cow. Gustav II Adolf would of course want to forcibly neuter Denmark a bit (probably By taking Skåne, Blekinge, Bohuslän and Halland) before admitting it. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer kind of thing. Denmark did try to fight for the protestants in 1628 but was defeated.

A female ruled had never been tried in Sweden. Kristina was only crowned because there were no other options and the high nobility saw a chance to grab everything they could - which they did. A male child that is raised to maturity will work much better for the Swedish position as a power.
 
Top