Gustavus Adolphus the Great

[KarlXII]

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 (), 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?

[Adrian II]

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 (), 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?

[KarlXII]

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.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I recently saw a book on Gustavus Adolphus at a local discount bookstore; now I wish I would have picked it up.

[Adrian II]

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.

[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.

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

[KarlXII]

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.

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

[KrooK]

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

[Martok]

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.

[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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[KarlXII]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[KarlXII]

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.

[Warmaster Horus]

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.

[Adrian II]

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...

[KrooK]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[KarlXII]

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

[Martok]

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

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.... -- 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.

[Adrian II]

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

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?'

[Ironside]

Julius Caesar

Huh?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

[Warmaster Horus]

Even Rommel is rather known.

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

[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?

[Ironside]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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