Gustavus Adolphus the Great

http://www.reformationsa.org/article...usAdolphus.htm

Very interesting article on King Gustavus Adolphus the Great.

In an attempt not to sound overly-nationalist, and I apologize if I do (:2thumbsup:), I believe Adolphus was probably one of greatest military minds of his time, and in history. Though of course not the sole innovater in the idea of combined arms, he managed to effectively apply the idea to a campaign, that being the Thirty Years War. His use of mobile artillery, shallower ranks of pike and musket, and the use of combined cavalry and infantry in warfare helped heavily in his victories.

Any opinions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

http://www.reformationsa.org/article...usAdolphus.htm

Very interesting article on King Gustavus Adolphus the Great.

In an attempt not to sound overly-nationalist, and I apologize if I do (:2thumbsup:), I believe Adolphus was probably one of greatest military minds of his time, and in history. Though of course not the sole innovater in the idea of combined arms, he managed to effectively apply the idea to a campaign, that being the Thirty Years War. His use of mobile artillery, shallower ranks of pike and musket, and the use of combined cavalry and infantry in warfare helped heavily in his victories.

Any opinions?

---

Not much to add, except that you are probably right. I just travelled Wallenstein´s homeland (Frydlant in the former Austrian Bohemia, now Czechia) and was reminded of his military genius.

Could you shed some new light on the Battle of Lützen (1632) where Gustavus was killed? The paradox of that battle seems to be that if the Swedes' resistance had not hardened because of Gustavus' death, Wallenstein might well have carried the day despite being in the minority and with less motivated troops. Or is this poppycock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not much to add, except that you are probably right. I just travelled Wallenstein´s homeland (Frydlant in the former Austrian Bohemia, now Czechia) and was reminded of his military genius.

Could you shed some new light on the Battle of Lützen (1632) where Gustavus was killed? The paradox of that battle seems to be that if the Swedes' resistance had not hardened because of Gustavus' death, Wallenstein might well have carried the day despite being in the minority and with less motivated troops. Or is this poppycock?

---

Rumors of the King's death were spreading before it was used to win the day, the whole Swedish centre broke after a disastorous charge. Royal preacher Jakob Fabricius gathered officers and sang psalms in the rout, and hundreds of soldiers stopped. I believe that the Swedish Army was effectively saved by this act. When the army learned of the King's death, they were not leaderless, as Bernhard had already taken control, but they were vengeful. "They have killed the King! Avenge the King!," was the charging cry as they headed straight at the Imperial line, taking the day.

To your question: Had Gustavus Adolphus not died, the battle probably would've ended earlier in a Swedish victory. Had the Army never learned of his death, the battle would more than likely ended in a stalemate, or close Swedish victory. Simply because the death of the King gave the Swedes inspiration to win. Wallenstein would more than likely not be able to win, in any case.

I recently saw a book on Gustavus Adolphus at a local discount bookstore; now I wish I would have picked it up. :no::sweatdrop::no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Wallenstein would more than likely not be able to win, in any case.

---

I see. His troops weren't exactly #A1 either. I remember reading the huge (and hugely tedious) Wallenstein-biography by Golo Mann as a student, and one thing which stuck in my mind is the sheer doggedness with which Wallenstein pursued his campaigns in the second and final phase of his career. No money, no soldiers, no support whatsoever from Ferdinand. And in his advanced age he constantly suffered from gout, tooth aches and stomch trouble, which made the endless marching, maneuvering and (re)positioning particularly hard on him. Still, he managed to force the Swedes to attack a fortified position at Lützen. Quite a feat of the old fox.

I have to confess that despite the fact there's a Lutheran college right here in Minnesota that's named after the man, I'd never really paid any attention to who he was until after I joined the Org. :embarassed:

Nice article, although it does portray him as little more than a Swedish version of Alfred the Great. Perhaps that was intentional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I have to confess that despite the fact there's a Lutheran college right here in Minnesota that's named after the man, I'd never really paid any attention to who he was until after I joined the Org. :embarassed:

Nice article, although it does portray him as little more than a Swedish version of Alfred the Great. Perhaps that was intentional?

---

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was hard pressed to find a proper biography on the King. Most information you can get is on the 30 years war in general, with little mention of Adolphus' true exploits.

And yes, Gustavus is often seen as Sweden's Alfred the Great :beam:

He was really good commander. However not undefeated....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

He was really good commander. However not undefeated....

---

Yeah, but who isn't? To the best of my knowledge, Alexander is the only "Great General" who can make the claim of never having lost a battle in which he personally commanded. That Gustavus cannot doesn't nullify his genius -- that would be like saying Hannibal was a sucky commander because he eventually lost to Rome in the end.

John Carl Chodkiewicz was undefeated. For me Gustavus was great .... infantry general. People on west are talking about his great cavarly but it was infantry that made him famous. We have to remember that since his changes into swedish army (whole unit shot same time) swedish tactic was being used up to mid of XIX century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

John Carl Chodkiewicz was undefeated.

---

Ah, the great Lithuanian general. His troubles were quite similar to those of Wallenstein: no funds, constantly neglected, underestimated and distrusted by his superiors, yet forever on the move and often successful against terrible odds, although the results of most of his victories crumbled because of bad or absent follow-up and lack of funds to sustain them.

It is a mistake to think that only Italy had its condottieri. Seventeenth century Europe had loads of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

John Carl Chodkiewicz was undefeated. For me Gustavus was great .... infantry general. People on west are talking about his great cavarly but it was infantry that made him famous. We have to remember that since his changes into swedish army (whole unit shot same time) swedish tactic was being used up to mid of XIX century.

---

Chodkiewicz? Lithuanian noblety? Please, if you would, provide a link to his undefeatedness.....

Adolphus was a superb combined arms general. his use of cannon, musket and sabre helped him enormousely in his campaigns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Chodkiewicz? Lithuanian noblety? Please, if you would, provide a link to his undefeatedness.....

---

Why yes, daddy was Lithuanian. And his undefeated reputation is rather deserved, as it were. Unless you count his withdrawal after his failed march on Moscow, for lack of funds resulting in mutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Why yes, daddy was Lithuanian. And his undefeated reputation is rather deserved, as it were. Unless you count his withdrawal after his failed march on Moscow, for lack of funds resulting in mutiny.

---

If his march on Moscow failed then he wasn't undefeated, was he?

Not trying to sound like a jerk, just have a hard time believing he was undefeated.

I was sceptical too, but you can't exactly say he was defeated. Hannibal was undefeated until Zama, but he couldn't besiege Rome because of lack of troops/funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

If his march on Moscow failed then he wasn't undefeated, was he?

Not trying to sound like a jerk, just have a hard time believing he was undefeated.

---

Defeated by circumstance, not by the enemy. Mind you, many generals of the period lost battles because of adverse circumstance, political intrigue and, most of all, shortage of funds. Wallenstein's proposition that 'war should pay for itself' wasn't very successful either...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz

Chodkiewicz never lost field battle. Sometimes (into Russia) he had to withdraw but not because he lost but because he had no chance for victory. But results of his raids were casefire into Divilno when Poland reconquered everything it lost into XV and XVI century.
To add something to article - into battle of Bialy Kamien (White Stone) his 2000 soldiers crushed 7000 Swedens. And there is mistake about Chocim. Polish-Cossack units were not into fortress but into more of less fortified camp next to fortress.

I think its much more than battle of Trzcianna - Straszewo - Pulkowice when Gustav II Adolf suffered terribly defeat and survived only due to luck. He lost because his cavarly could not stand polish even when polish was tired. After battle he confessed that he have never been into such a dangerous situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

I think its much more than battle of Trzcianna - Straszewo - Pulkowice when Gustav II Adolf suffered terribly defeat and survived only due to luck. He lost because his cavarly could not stand polish even when polish was tired. After battle he confessed that he have never been into such a dangerous situation.

---

Trzcianką was a great victory for Koniecpolski. Yet it all came to naught, like so many victories in those days, because of shortage of funds, lack of political follow-up and intrigue among the generals and court nobles. Gurzno put an end to Polish ambitions, even though their forces (particularly the cavalry) were generally superior to the Swedes.

Then again, some tend to forget that Poland simultaneously had to defend another front entirely, with a much more redoutable enemy: the Ottoman Empire.

Adrian but in the end Poland defend Gdansk and its region. Into XVIIth century it was more important than Inflants. Notice that after Gustavus death Sweden withdrawed from Gdansk region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Adrian but in the end Poland defend Gdansk and its region. Into XVIIth century it was more important than Inflants. Notice that after Gustavus death Sweden withdrawed from Gdansk region.

---

I notice, But we have to grant the OP that Gustavus was one of a kind. His wiki is quite adequate where it sums up his achievements:

Sweden expanded to become the third biggest nation in Europe after Russia and Spain within only a few years during his reign. Some have called him the father of modern warfare, or the first great modern general. It is indisputable that under his tutelage, Sweden and the protestant cause developed a host of good generals — who continued to expand the empire's strength and influence long after his death in battle.

He is, and was even during his own time (The Italians referred to him as "The Golden King" and others as "The Lion of the North"), widely regarded as the archetype of what a king should be and one of the few European kings and sovereign princes during the seventeenth century worthy of the office. He was , unquestionably, one of the greatest military generals in all of history, and his battles were studied assiduously by later great military figures such as Napoleon, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Carl von Clausewitz and Patton, as they are still taught in military science courses today.

Unfortunately, Adrian, you'd find he's more greatly appreciated in Europe, but not in America :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Unfortunately, Adrian, you'd find he's more greatly appreciated in Europe, but not in America :dizzy2:

---

I'm afraid you're probably only too correct. While most folks here would recognize the names Napoleon, Alexander, and Washington -- not that he's truly considered one of the "greats", of course, but he's American, so.... :shrug: -- I'm sure very few of my countrymen (outside of those interested in military history and/or of Swedish heritage) have ever even heard of Gustavus, much less know who he actually is. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Unfortunately, Adrian, you'd find he's more greatly appreciated in Europe, but not in America :dizzy2:

---

As a matter of fact I think many more Europeans know about Washington than about Gustavus.

Anyway I'm not into worshipping historical figures, bar some exceptional thinkers and writers. Even those should be seen in proper perspective: not as superhumans or as exponents of national greatness, but rather as exponents of individual human achievement.

So it doesn't really matter to me. Except that I'm glad there are so many history buffs on the .Org and it's a relief that you can insert a name like Gustavus Adolphus, Duke of Wellington, Julius Caesar or Erwin Rommel into a thread and nobody will go

'Huh?' :bucktooth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Julius Caesar

---

Huh? :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

~;p

Now if you had mention something like Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck I would've gotten the list, but Ceasar is quite well known

Even Rommel is rather known.

I may be out on a limb here, but I don't feel a commander should be judged by his victories and defeats as much as how he handled the circumstances given to him. With the rather large scale of variables involved in a military encounter, I think that being 'undefeated' is as much luck as skill.

Take, for example, the American Civil War. The Confederacy had some brilliant generals, but those that survived the war were doomed to failure due to circumstances beyond their control. Robert E. Lee was a phenomenal strategist and his right hand man, Thomas Jackson, was actually undefeated IIRC, due to being killed at Chancellorsville. Give those men a set-piece battle and they would win it, sometimes even at incredible odds. However, attrition could neither be divided nor conquered.

In the same light, Germany in the Second World War is widely regarded as having the fielded the best commanders of the war. They pulled off some striking victories, and held off incredible odds - but political failures(Hitler's ineptitude) put overall victory just out of reach.

Are we then to believe that Monty was a better general than Rommel, Grant more adept than Lee, or Patton(undefeated IIRC) superior to Von Manstein?

Caesar and Rommel are known to you, but not to my grocer. Then again he's more knowledgeable on vegetables than most Org members, know what I'm saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Caesar and Rommel are known to you, but not to my grocer. Then again he's more knowledgeable on vegetables than most Org members, know what I'm saying?

---

That being more knowledgeable on one subject doesn't make you generally superior?

Still, Ceasar is at least top three of known Romans and the Romans are pretty much general knowledge, thus no need for deeper knowledge to know who he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

That being more knowledgeable on one subject doesn't make you generally superior?

---

That too, yes. But mainly that I prefer to discuss Caeser and the rest with Org members, not with my grocer. I am afraid some of you have far too lofty ideas about historical knowledge among the general public. Many may somehow recognize the name Caesar, for instance, but if asked to specify will describe him as the Egyptian emperor who killed Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That too, yes. But mainly that I prefer to discuss Caeser and the rest with Org members, not with my grocer. I am afraid some of you have far too lofty ideas about historical knowledge among the general public. Many may somehow recognize the name Caesar, for instance, but if asked to specify will describe him as the Egyptian emperor who killed Jesus.

---

:laugh4:

Agree. Knowing that Rommel is the "Desert Fox" as opposed to the American Red Fox doesn't count for much. (True story..:wall:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

If his march on Moscow failed then he wasn't undefeated, was he?

Not trying to sound like a jerk, just have a hard time believing he was undefeated.

---

Well, in this fashion you'd have to count Alexander as defeated, too. His army mutinied as he was attempting to conquer the Nanda (or was it the Maurya?) Empire.

As for undefeated generals, I heard that Wu Qi, from China's Warring States Period, was undefeated.

The thirty years war was absolutely insane. :dizzy2:

I believe it was Maurya after his "conquest" of King Porus.

Gustavus adopted many tactical and technical innovations from abroad, especially from the Dutch. Small linear infantry formations, extensive drills for rapid fire and many other aspects of his army were already well known at his time. However as a King he was able to marshal the ressources of his land into building a solid army with excellent training and equipment, fine discipline and great tactical skill. Good logistics and regular pay kept his men marching.

So he had time and ressources to build an army into a mighty tool wielded by his great skill as commander. I think his successes were due to this synergies of state and army, tactical innovations and strategic skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That too, yes. But mainly that I prefer to discuss Caeser and the rest with Org members, not with my grocer. I am afraid some of you have far too lofty ideas about historical knowledge among the general public. Many may somehow recognize the name Caesar, for instance, but if asked to specify will describe him as the Egyptian emperor who killed Jesus.

---

LOL.

You're exagerating a touch, of course, since most of the Western world at least would connect him with Rome, but you are quite correct as to the level of "fuzziness" most have in their knowledge of history. If it will not get them laid or paid, many will fast track the bit of knowledge in question into the recycle bin and use that grey matter for something more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Caesar and Rommel are known to you, but not to my grocer. Then again he's more knowledgeable on vegetables than most Org members, know what I'm saying?

---

As a grocer I take offense :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

LOL.

You're exagerating a touch, of course, since most of the Western world at least would connect him with Rome, but you are quite correct as to the level of "fuzziness" most have in their knowledge of history. If it will not get them laid or paid, many will fast track the bit of knowledge in question into the recycle bin and use that grey matter for something more important.

---

And that is the shame of society. :juggle2:

About Gustavus. How about making alliances with Catholic French cardinals against the HRE/AH? First signs that the state's importance outweighed the religion (a common theme for wars of the time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

And that is the shame of society. :juggle2:

About Gustavus. How about making alliances with Catholic French cardinals against the HRE/AH? First signs that the state's importance outweighed the religion (a common theme for wars of the time).

---

Problem there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

John Carl Chodkiewicz was undefeated. For me Gustavus was great .... infantry general. People on west are talking about his great cavarly but it was infantry that made him famous. We have to remember that since his changes into swedish army (whole unit shot same time) swedish tactic was being used up to mid of XIX century.

---

That's what I remember him for. Gustavus was significant because he ended the centuries long dominance of the Spanish invented turcio formation, replacing it with a more mobile and flexible infantry force.

That is if I recall correctly.

Having recently wrote an essay on Gustavus Adolphus Magnus and the Swedish military of his time, I think I might add in a few more points, amongst many others:

-his reformation of the Swedish native forces, modernizing it into Europe's first national standing army of conscripts
-his spectacular use (and possibly invention) of salvo-fire amongst his field artillery pieces and musketeers, a shock tactic designed to replaced the push of pike
-many other achievements, not solely in military matters, which helped him receive the epither "The Great," the only honour of its sort gifted to any Swedish monarch to date

I'm not Swedish, so I'm less biased. He was a good guy... :beam:

I am Swedish, so I guess I´m biased. No matter how great a general and "good guy" he was, one important thing remains to be said. He ruined Sweden. Sure, he conquered a lot of land and made us famous and important, but he ruined Sweden´s "economy" as it was back then. His endless war emptied many towns and villages of young men leading to more and more people moving to the cities were overpopulation and extremely bad sanitation became a huge problem, yet Gustavus never even attempted to do anything about this.
He basically set back Sweden´s economical and social progress by decades.

Not saying that he wasn´t great at what he did, nor that the German and Polish ports didn´t make the crown any richer, but most of that money went to funding even more war anyway, like that big ship that sunk on its maiden voyage.
He (or actually Oxenstierna and co) did do some good work with Riksbanken and the goverment reforms, but overall I wouldn´t say he was really that great for Sweden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Appo

His endless war emptied many towns and villages of young men leading to more and more people moving to the cities were overpopulation and extremely bad sanitation became a huge problem, yet Gustavus never even attempted to do anything about this.

---

Acceptable loss.

Ummm...not. Might just be me, but I think the well being of ones citizens should go above ones own personal dreams of glory. Not saying anyone else back then was different, but still.

Humans are a renewable resource.

*shots Meth in the head and waits for new guy to pop up*

Come now, gentlemen. If you two are gonna flirt with each other, keep it in the EB Tavern. ~;p


But anyway.... :focus:


Regardless of what effects -- positive or negative -- he had Sweden's economic & social infrastructure, it's undeniable that GA put his country on the map in a way no other Swedish monarch had done previously. My question is this: Ultimately, what legacy (good or bad) did he leave behind? What was his true impact, both inside Sweden's borders and without?

Well, I don't know if you're hinting to socio-economics or diplomatic stance og millitary development?

Most of these points have already been covered, but the most important in my book are the limitations of catholic influence in germany. If Gustav hadn't intervened all of germany, and perhaps even more of europe would have become catholic. Keeping north germany lutheran protestant drew lines of thought that can still be seen in europe today. Some historians claims this is very important, others point to a host of other factors. It's complicated, as they say...

And Gen. Appo, I think I read somewhere that the number of peasants drafted in sweden compared to the population was the highest in the world. Something like 1 in 4 males nationwide. Does anybody have any info on that?

/KotR

Can´t bring up any source right now, no, but that does sound about right compared to what I´ve read.

Yeah, that sounds believable. The number of conscripted peasants was insane. Glorious, even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Yeah, but who isn't? To the best of my knowledge, Alexander is the only "Great General" who can make the claim of never having lost a battle in which he personally commanded.

---

alexander was routed by ariobarzanes at the persian gate.

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/ariobar...barzanes2.html

Even if the article is to be belived, it merely states that Alexander was ambushed at the gate and slaughtered the persians on the following day. What a humiliating defeat?

/KotR

alexander did not defeat them the following day. He waited 30 days before he attempted another assault, in which he was victorious. The macedonians abandoned their casualties during the first battle, something that hellenic armies never did, unless they had been thoroughly defeated. the macedonians lost platoons at a time from the projectile bombardment of the persians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate

Jeez, stick to the pikes and muskets guys...

Anyway, old GA is wont to get credit for stuff he didn't really do, and not get it for stuff he *did*. For example he tends to get hailed as some sort of military genius, which is untrue; he just put together stuff that worked, most of it picked up from some foreign lad or another, particularly for the rather meager resources he had at his disposal. (And tried a fair few things that *didn't* work, like the creative but inherently flawed leather cannon.) Or the bit about "national" armies. Bah. The damn French had more of one already in the 1500s, their backbone formations being manned by, well, Frenchmen. And Thirty Years' War Swedish field armies were almost all foreign mercenaries (Germans, mostly), these being preferred for combat duty; the hapless peasant conscripts from the home country were mainly used for garrison duties, being cheap and readily available. (The "native" combat units consisted of paid volunteers - particularly the cavalry drew heavily on a sort of quasi-feudal "tax breaks in exchange of an armed horseman" arrangement.)

And most people fail to appreciate the importance of his assorted adminstrative, economical and political reforms had; the man basically set rolling the developement that resulted in one of the first examples of a centrally adminstered unitary state in the modern sense.

Then again, that latter was pretty much something he *had* to do if he was to get anything ambitious done with the piss-poor backwater little kingdom he inherited. Developing the beginnings of a well-run, responsive modern state bureaucracy allowed the realm to make most out of what it had (chiefly, extract taxes and manpower from the populace) and "punch above its weight" as it were. ('Course, the Swedish Great Power burned itself out in under a century but...)

This is not to say that Gustavus didn't get stuff changed. Far from it. But he was more the guy who first put a number of ideas that had been bouncing around for a while already together into a cohesive whole, rather than an inventor. His infantry formations drew quite a bit on the Dutch; his cavalry tactics, the dire necessity of having to fight the quite formidable Polish and Lithuanian lancers (the idea of using the pistol as a cavalry shock weapon - pistolade is one term for it - wasn't anything new though; it had already been used to good effect in the French Wars of Religion in the previous century). Ditto for the inclusion of organic regimental artillery to improve the firepower of the infantry blocks.

His newfangled tactics did come as bit of a shock to the German belligerents, although they'd themselves been slowly moving in some of the same directions anyway. They were duly impressed, and promptly copied the whole lot thus more or less negating any "systemic" advantage the Swedish armies had initially enjoyed. At Lützen already - the second Swedish year into the war - both sides were already using nigh identical techniques, and the whole thing was duly more or less a bloody draw which the Swedes won mainly by default, having been slower to leave the field...
That's the problem with an advantage derived from using existing technologies in a new manner - there's nothing keeping the other guy from bluntly copy-pasting them. (Which is why anyone with delusions of military grandeur keeps pouring megabucks into cutting-edge deathware these days; hard to match it if you plain can't afford to...)

I'm not trying to refute anything you said, Watchman. Sounds pretty convincing to me. But can the greatness of a military leader really be summed up by listing what he did and didn't do? The impression I got is that GA's sucess was as much because of who he was as what he did. I find it hard to believe that mercinaries from a war from hell responded to all that scripture quoting and kneeling on battle fields, but they seem to have sensed his faith and greatness of soul and responded to it ... or is that just myth?

Anyway, it seems to me that all the really great generals of history were more than just extra clever, which is why they call 'em Alexander the Great instead of Alexander the Smart. In one way or another the great generals had some inner quality which their troops could respond to ... or is that just myth too?

Usually files under "charisma" and/or "success", AFAIK. Although in GA's case I imagine playing the Protestant card - and I don't doubt that there was real faith behind it too; religion was *very* Serious Business those days - worked rather well among the German Protestant audience.

Hell, he was being hailed as a damn saint and a prophesised saviour...

Then he stumbled into a squadron of Imperial cuirassieurs in the smoke of Lützen and kind of embarassingly died. Ah well, at least that helped preserve his image since he didn't end up presiding over the round sixteen further grimy, cynical and pitiless years of the war. (One of the great ironies of which was the thorough Swedish razing of Bohemia, the origin of the Protestant rising, late to the conflict...)

Hmm ... giving it a couple of names and filing it is all very well, but it doesn't really explain it, or even take it adequately into account. :inquisitive:

As for the Protestant card ... very true, but there have been lots of militiary leaders with a religious faith in history. Not all of them get hailed as saints by a long shot. He was probably a remarkable individual to gain such a reputation, even after we take into account the propaganda angle and the human need ffor a hero, not to mention glossed over faults. (His mistress and illegitimate son don't quite fit the Protestant saint picture, do they?) :embarassed:

Seems to me that there is always something in war that cannot be counted or quantified for the simple reason that we don't really understand human nature. No wonder you want to file it. Thats all we can do. Except maybe pull it out of the file now and then, marvel at it, and perhaps even draw some inspiration from it. How valuable that is cannot be counted or quantified either, but I suspect it does us more good than any amount of analysis of 30 year war tactics, economics, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Problem there.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

Given that the French had never had much issue about allying with the Ottomans to outflank the Hapsburgs... (and conversely the Hapsburgs cheerfully allied with the Persians to outflank the Ottomans...)
Realpolitik.

It incidentally occurs to me that this thread's title is quite possibly the first time ever I've seen the moniker "the Great" tagged onto ole Gustavus II Adolphus... which isn't really surprising, as his achievements weren't really those rulers generally earned the title with.

He's one of my heroes :clown:.

I don't know how much of a Leader he was when it came to ruling nations, but fighing wise, he was a genius in my opinion. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Given that the French had never had much issue about allying with the Ottomans to outflank the Hapsburgs... (and conversely the Hapsburgs cheerfully allied with the Persians to outflank the Ottomans...)
Realpolitik.

It incidentally occurs to me that this thread's title is quite possibly the first time ever I've seen the moniker "the Great" tagged onto ole Gustavus II Adolphus... which isn't really surprising, as his achievements weren't really those rulers generally earned the title with.

---

Yeah the book I'm looking at doesn't mention "the Great" as a title.

Realpolitik, exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Yeah the book I'm looking at doesn't mention "the Great" as a title.

---

Swedish Parliament gave the distinction in 1634.

AKA "posthumous brownnosing". Doesn't mean much. The sobriquet "the Great" is one of those that only sticks by sufficiently widely and lastingly recognised, sufficient merit.

Put this way, when was the last time a historian worth something called the guy by that title ?

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. A lot of rulers have been referred to, and known for, their title "The Great".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. A lot of rulers have been referred to, and known for, their title "The Great".

---

Well I think Watchman is stating that Gustavus Adolphus, was not known for the title "The great". And according to the book I have it's not stated either.

Now it's simply a technicality, but nonetheless...

Call it "insistence on proper forms" if you will. (Also, it's Gustavus II Adolphus... ~;p There's a reason monarchs' names have those numbers.) I'm wont to get itchy when people toss grandiose monikers where such have no recognised business in.
Allergia to buzzwords perhaps ? :sweatdrop:

Something to mull over, though: the French-funded Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War, which had until then been really something of a domestic disturbance in the Holy Roman Empire not unlike the French Wars of Religion had been in the previous century, may well have been what escalated the conlict into somehting of a "First European World War" (seeing as how just about everybody who was something at the time eventually got involved in some fashion) and dragged it out by well over another bloody, agonising decade. After all, when Gustavus landed in Peenemünde in 1630 the the German war was starting to look something like a done deal, the Imperial forces being more or less in the slow process of mopping up the remaining centres of resistance.

In other words, the Swedish participation may well have been the direct cause of not only stretching the war out for nearly two more brutal decades, but also down the road escalating it very considerably in scale and scope. The price of pretty much breaking the back of both Catholic and Imperial power in the HRE and laying the groundwork for a rather surprising number of modern state institutions; whether it was "worth it" or not is a question I for one find irrelevant and absurd, but it's something worth keeping in mind for the sake of perspective.