Why did the Thirty Years' War end up as protracted as it was?

Why was the Thirty Years' War so protracted?


  • Total voters
    61
The only problem with conscription is the nobles would revolt before they consent to arming the peasants en masse. Levee en masse is political and social suicide as long as your military system is run by a hereditary landed aristocracy with an agrarian, peasant-based economy.

which means at this point in time, the only country that could use it was the United Provinces/Netherlands.Because although some nobility around, it effectively were the merchants that ran the country
 
I'd be lying to claim expertise, but the idea of them being too balanced seems closest - no one had sufficiently overwhelming force to end things swiftly for a variety of reasons, and no one important was so weak as to collapse quickly either.

I wonder about this. ISTM that prior to the Swedish entry the Habsburgs had pretty much won, no?

I don't know if a surviving Gustav Adolphus would really change anything, I admit, but it does look like the war changed significantly at a couple of points. (Off base what iff: A different outcome at White Mountain).
 
I wonder about this. ISTM that prior to the Swedish entry the Habsburgs had pretty much won, no?

I don't know if a surviving Gustav Adolphus would really change anything, I admit, but it does look like the war changed significantly at a couple of points. (Off base what iff: A different outcome at White Mountain).

Given that the Swedes entered in 1630, and the war started in 1618 . . .

Even if they didn't enter and the war ended shortly thereafter, I'd still say it was "protracted".

I'm not saying it was irrelevant to it lasting even longer, but twelve years is a long time.
 
Top