WI Gustav Adolf is killed in 1627?

Ok, it's from Wikipedia, but still is a good POD. Apparently Gustav Adolh was injured twice between June-August of 1627, during the war in Poland:

"At the beginning of June 1627, Gustav Adolf was lightly wounded while attempting a night-crossing of the Vistula in a boat near Käsemark (Kieżmark), south of Danzig (Gdańsk), and had to retreat."

And this happened during a battle near the Motlawa River on 17 and 18 August: "In 1627, near Dirschau in Prussia, a Polish soldier shot him in the muscles above his shoulders. He survived, but the doctors could not remove the bullet, so from that point on, he could not wear iron armor. Also, two fingers of his right hand were paralyzed."

So, WI Gustav Adolf had been killed in one of these incidents instead of only wounded (probably the second one is a better POD)? This was before the Swedish intervention in the 30 Years War, so would it mean a shorter conflict in Germany? Or would it mean an earlier French participation in the war?
 
No love for 30 Years War's PODs?:(

I was wondering if Gustav's death in 1627 would be enough to take the Swedes out of the war with Poland too. Was it too late for Poland regain Livonia?
 
This isn't the Gustavus Adolphus by any chance, is it? If he was, then expect Sweden to get screwed and Poland to have more leverage. Of course, having a stronger Poland would have tipped the scales during the 30YW in the Catholics' favor.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I doubt Sweden would enter the 30 years war without Gustav II Adolf. I doubt a regency council for a newborn girl would take Sweden into a large European war. Especially since that girl is all that keeps the Catholic Polish Wasas away from the Swedish throne. However Sweden would probably try to win the ongoing conflict with Poland. I could also see further wars with Denmark in the future.
 
Last edited:
I could also see further wars with Denmark in the future.

Certainly not right away (due to Denmark being part of the thirty year war from 25-29), but i would except Denmark at least considering to jump Sweden in an attempt of rebuilding the Kalmar Unio (prehaps by forcing a bethotal between the infant Queen Christina and either the Heir appearent (who was 18 at that point) or more likely one of his Morganatic son Valdemar, born in 22), or at least forcing Sweden to renounce their claim on Scandia, somerwhere in 30-31 when they've rebuilt their forces ...

In terms of what it would do to the Thirty year war ... well, France would probably intervene earlier given that their reasoning was to keep HRE from winning ... i could see Sweden entering on a later point through, when presured by their ally, France.
 
Last edited:
No love for 30 Years War's PODs?:(

I was wondering if Gustav's death in 1627 would be enough to take the Swedes out of the war with Poland too. Was it too late for Poland regain Livonia?
It just so happens that it is not a subject for everybody,apart from the fact that it probably was the most horrible time in German history;the land of Germany had not recovered even at the time of Bismark,250 years later.
It is the war that has caused endless expert discussions as to how much it
influenced the character of the German people....sorry I had better deal with the question in hand:
Now,this war took place at what we call in military history the period of undivided armies,where armies were expensive and manoevre was the order of the day and as a result it was the period of military giants,those who did war at its highest level of competence that most people including historians
are not aware of;I read in many sites in alternate history about great generals and all "academicians" and "historians" propose the one or the other and know nothing about the Thirty Years War generals who set the art of war in its proper level of importance in Europe after Ancient Greece and a little Rome.
I sometimes wonder how would Ceasar feel if instead of that barbarian Vergicentorix or that bafoon Pompey he would have to face the Great Conde,Vicompte de Turenne,Raimondo Montecuccoli Albrecht von Wallenstein or even Luxemburg,Maurice de Sax or Eugene of Savoi,and think Gonzaga(Ceasare,Ferrante or Clair?) that these men faced each other on campaign...and if you remove Gustavus Adolfus from the picture,we will not have Wallenstein and many of the great men of that time will be unknown...and you will have that oaf Johann Tserclaes Count of Tilly dominating the destruction of Germany...god forbid...
 
Last edited:
Certainly not right away (due to Denmark being part of the thirty year war from 25-29), but i would except Denmark at least considering to jump Sweden in an attempt of rebuilding the Kalmar Unio (prehaps by forcing a bethotal between the infant Queen Christina and either the Heir appearent (who was 18 at that point) or more likely one of his Morganatic son Valdemar, born in 22), or at least forcing Sweden to renounce their claim on Scandia, somerwhere in 30-31 when they've rebuilt their forces

Is Denmark capable of this?

By 1629 Wallenstein had occupied Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Jutland. Only Stralsund resisted.

The Treaty of Lubeck was fairly mild in OTL, but the Emperor was pushing for Jutland to be ceded. One of the reasons that the Treaty of Lubeck was so mild is that the Habsburgs were afraid of a Danish-Swedish alliance.

But in the ATL, what is the incentive to be nice to Denmark? Stralsund will almost certainly fall, after all.
 
good point ... but it could be that they knew that France was gearing up and wanted that front closed up nicely instead of slugging through long peace engagements with armed truce on both sides not helping effectively in the war
 
...
and you will have that oaf Johann Tserclaes Count of Tilly dominating the destruction of Germany...god forbid...
There is really a large debate over how responsible Tilly was for the various war crimes commited under his command.

Perhaps he was responsible, or perhaps he wasn't, strong cases have been made for both sides...

Besides that I can't really make a huge contribution except to say that Gustavus Adolphus Rex was a damn good king and that cutting him down earlier rather than later can only means bad things...
 
good point ... but it could be that they knew that France was gearing up and wanted that front closed up nicely instead of slugging through long peace engagements with armed truce on both sides not helping effectively in the war

The problem is, could France intervene such earlier? Richelieu was still facing the Huguenot rebellion until 1628, and by 1629 and 1630 he was still having to face the political conflict in the court against those who wanted to depose him (especially Marie de Medicis). So, with no Swedish help coming for their support, and with no French intervention, would the Protestants princes be forced to make a peace? And would such peace be similar to the proposed Peace of Prague of 1635?
 
It is quite possible that not too much will change.

The Swedish organisation had already been built up by 1627, and proved a vastly superior field army than what the Poles and Imperial Germans fielded at the time. Sweden will probably still win the Polish War.

Axel Oxenstierna will probably be the regent for Kristina, and he would probably want the army outside Sweden as much as Gustav II Adolf wanted it - and the French can still offer money for that. The intervention might come a year or two later, but it will probably come. And Sweden at this time had plenty of really good Generals besides Gustav II Adolf - Banér, Horn, Torstensson and Wrangel can probably whip most of the Imperial opposition as they did OTL 1632-1648 (with the exception of Nördlingen).

Axel Oxenstierna or any other members of the regency council will not accept a betrothal of Kristina to a Danish Prince - it means giving up their independence to their arch-enemy only two generations after finally getting out from under their thumb.
 
von Adler;6014178 The Swedish organisation had already been built up by 1627 said:
With the King dead? Probably, but I think the notion of Swedish superiority would be a bit less likely, no? Would you believe the fool who got himself shot really built an awesome military machine?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
It is quite possible that not too much will change.

The Swedish organisation had already been built up by 1627, and proved a vastly superior field army than what the Poles and Imperial Germans fielded at the time. Sweden will probably still win the Polish War.

Axel Oxenstierna will probably be the regent for Kristina, and he would probably want the army outside Sweden as much as Gustav II Adolf wanted it - and the French can still offer money for that. The intervention might come a year or two later, but it will probably come. And Sweden at this time had plenty of really good Generals besides Gustav II Adolf - Banér, Horn, Torstensson and Wrangel can probably whip most of the Imperial opposition as they did OTL 1632-1648 (with the exception of Nördlingen).

Axel Oxenstierna or any other members of the regency council will not accept a betrothal of Kristina to a Danish Prince - it means giving up their independence to their arch-enemy only two generations after finally getting out from under their thumb.

You're right, I forgot the Swedish thinking of "better having a raping, plundering and burning army abroad than at home".
 
You're right, I forgot the Swedish thinking of "better having a raping, plundering and burning army abroad than at home".

That was what EVERYONE thought back in those days. A field army was like a hoard of locusts. Once you raised one the primary objective was to get it into enemy lands not to fight but to make sure your own lands werent stripped and pillaged.
 
Top