Alternate History:The Thirty Years War

**Lord Winter** · 12-22-2005, 08:38

I thought I would start a new alternate history about the 30 years war The Rules will be very similar to King Henry V alternate history. First three post decide with the tie going to the first post. First two posters can suggest other options. Any comments on writing style, relism or hitorical accuracy are welcomed.

Historically The 30 years war marked the end of the Holy Roman Empire as a major power. The war was fought under the banner of religion between the Catholics and the Protestants although many rulers used it for political means. The right decision could change the outcome of the war however.

You are Ferdinand II Holy Roman Emperor. Since the start of your reign five years ago the Empire had been engaged in civil war against the Protestant elector Fredrick V this rebellion has been crushed but the future of the Holy Roman Empire is far from certain. Religious unrest is widespread as Catholics and Protestants fight each other in the over their religion. France, the Dutch and England have all expressed there hate against your house, the Hapsburgs. Europe is dived into to two leagues: the Catholic league you are apart of and the Protestant league which your enemies belong too. War is now imminent and if the Holy Roman Empire is too survive swift action needs to be taken.

It is a typical meeting between you the electors of the Holy Roman Empire and the ambassadors from Spain and the Catholic league. The standard maneuvering for political advantage sometimes makes you sick. But nether-the-less you feel it is just one of the things you must put up with for the sake of the Empire.

As the last of the council sorts into the room you stand to make the opening speech:

“Honorable Electors and ambassadors, as you all know the realm and the Catholic league are far from safe, a collation of nations has formed against the great power of the Holy Roman Empire and her rulers the Hapsburgs. We must now decide our next step of action, I am open to suggestions”

“Christian of Denmark has been known to speak about his wish of challenging the catholic league; if we were to presumptively invade Denmark it would limit the damage the war would cause and give us a foothold in the mostly protestant Baltic”, the elector of Saxony suggested.

“My lord, as you know your cousin has requested your help against the Dutch. By helping the Spanish you would free more of her forces if you need Spain’s help again,” your cousin’s ambassador voiced. You see some promise in helping your cousin for you have favors to repay for his help against Fredrick V. The Dutch have also been trying to rally many of the German princes in rebellion against the Catholic League.

“May I suggest allying with Poland? By doing so we would gain an ally who may help us if Sweden invades.” Maximillian of Bavaria, leader of the Catholic alliance and your chief ally suggests. You also see advantages in this plan. Gustavus Adolphus the king of Sweden has wished many times that he wasn’t at war at Poland so he could play the role of champion to the protestant cause.
It is now time for you to decide

1. Presumptively invade Denmark, doing so would keep the devastating impacts of war off Hapsburg land and would give you a foothold in the Baltic.

2. Attack the Dutch at Spain’s request: this would free up additional Spanish forces and get rid of a member of the anti Hapsburg league.

3. Ally in Poland in hopes of gaining support in the event of an Swedish invasion.

**Franconicus** · 12-22-2005, 09:09

Destroyer, thanks for this new story and good luck!
What year do we start?

I would prefer 2 and 3. Attack the Dutch and secure your rear with an alliance. But if I have to chose it is 3. Before we start a war, let's find allies!

May Habsburg rule forever!

**Rodion Romanovich** · 12-22-2005, 10:43

I agree, 3 is my choice, own alliances are always good, when enemies ally against you. Poland being catholic can still keep good relations with the pope and catholic side, which would make it politically tougher for the hostile alliance to justify an attack, although far from impossible. On the other hand this stiffens relations with the protestants, but it's probably worse with a potential war with the catholic nations. In any case Poland also shares interests by wanting to defend against a possible Swedish alliance, so without making any real choices of side in the religious aspect, it's possible to ally with Poland.

The second option is no. 2, but as it involves choosing side religiously, it's less desirable. On the other hand, if it turns out impossible to balance between the religions and at the same time meet demands of the protestants and those of the catholics, choosing side in the religious aspect is necessary. Then, the catholic side would be preferable, due to numbers, and it seems slightly more strongly united than the protestant side. Denmark and Sweden for instance don't seem to care much for peace internally, despite both being protestants. Then, the Dutch seem the best target, as they're trying to rally help from German provinces, which may turn out dangerous. Freeing up troops is always a good thing, also. Hopefully the war can be won before the Swedish or others invade, and if not, the Spanish have at least done fairly well in the war so far, so there's no hurry sending back German troops to the Dutch front after a Swedish attack has been dealt with, especially not if the German attack can cause enough damage to the Dutch fighting forces, and not just their morale.

By the way no. 1 would potentially hurt an important opponent of Sweden. To even make Denmark fight Sweden as an ally of us, if possible, would be useful to arrange.

Edit: corrected a mistake

**Franconicus** · 12-22-2005, 11:15

To my understanding: We are already part of the Catholic League - maybe even the leader - aren't we? So sides are clear. And our political goal is to regain the power and the unity of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, right? That means, whipe out protestantism!

Wait a monment! What amI doing here. I am a Lutheran myself

**Rodion Romanovich** · 12-22-2005, 11:53

Yes, I realized I was unclear at that point. What I meant was that religion itself is in this case just a political tool

. We're allied to the catholic league militarily, but that doesn't necessarily force us to be good catholics and fight all who are protestants. The protestants who aren't protestants but just rebels but claim protestantism for the sake of forming a strong alliance for their own causes, can for instance be separated from those who are more strongly supporting the protestantism. If the protestantic faith could be fought while meeting some demands of those claiming to be protestants, the pope would be happy, and many rebels would lose incentive for their rebellion (of course this must be done in a clever and careful way, not making the rebels feel their uprising or lack of strength to subdue them caused it, if possible - so the no.2, dutch choice, might be preferable. A great victory there followed by fairly just terms would work fine IMO). If at the same time keeping the prestige and respect of the army and strength of the empire high, it would be a good procedure. So that was my thought... when the protestants are true protestants there's no interest for us in fighting them, but if they're claiming to be protestants to join "the protestantic side" militarily to go against us, then we fight them. If they uphold the illusion of being protestants, so much better for us, because then the pope can't do anything but smile and thank us for having defeated some of the "protestantism"

**cegorach** · 12-22-2005, 11:59

There is another factor you should consider:

Polish king already helped the Hapsburgs sending mercenary army in 1619 lifting the siege of Vienna, still Hapsburgs were very unpopular in Poland since they tried to enforce its elected candidate for a king in 1588 - so beeing cautious is wise.

**Lord Winter** · 12-22-2005, 18:38

The year is 1623

Originally Posted by Franconicus

To my understanding: We are already part of the Catholic League - maybe even the leader - aren't we? So sides are clear. And our political goal is to regain the power and the unity of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, right? That means, whipe out protestantism!

That is basically the goal. Officially Maximillian of Baviria is the leader, but you are leader in all but name. I don't see any way of Ferdinand converting even for politics. he had to be one of the most conservative catholics out there.

@Leigo you could go with two options but it looks like you are out voted.

As for Sweden and the poles the only reason Gustavus hasn't invaded the HRE yet is because of his war in Poland. so we'll see how Sweden and Poland reacts. Thank you for all of your support
DoH

**Watchman** · 12-23-2005, 11:29

Historically, Poland stayed the heck away from the war in Germany. They didn't really have any reason to get involved anyway, if only because military adventurism wasn't a big hit amongst the ruling class (who were doing pretty well as was, and busy dividing Ukraine) and the drawn-out mess didn't exactly offer very good expense-profit projections. And I don't think there was any love lost between the Habsburgs and the Polish Vasas either; the Poles had a long history of seeing off German expansionism...

As far as religious divides go, keep in mind that the patently Catholic French monarchs were only too happy to help Protestants, or for that matter anyone else, against their old (and also patently Catholic) Habsburg arch-fiends... although they spent most of the war providing financial support; when they finally joined in openly they had some catching-up to do in military matters (not having fought a major war in quite a while, and hence a tad behind the times), but were soon able to pretty much knock Spain out of the equation and cause considerable problems to Imperial regions in Western parts of Germany.

Invading the Netherlands would have been more than little pointless. The Spanish had been warring there for decades already, to rather little avail - the TYW was one of those periods when fortifications *really* counted, and tended to utterly frusrate many an ambitious campaign. Sending German troops there would merely have diverted resources from fighting the Emperor's domestic foes and bogged them down in the morass. Heck, despite having to maintain pressure on the Dutch front the Spanish Habsburgs were nonetheless perfectly capable of sending substantial troops and other resources to the aid of their German kinsmen anyway...

The Emperor could most likely have walked all over Denmark if he wanted to - indeed, I seem to recall there having been a brief skirmish between the Danes and the Imperials, which persuaded the former to remain uninvolved - but would then run into the exact same problem as the Swedes did late in the war when war broke out between them and the Danes. The hardened Swedish main field army in Germany, quick-marched to the Baltic, brushed aside all resistance with contemptuous ease... until they arrived at the shore. The thing is, the Danish "heartlands" were on the islands; and they were *the* naval superpower in the Baltic. Having a land army zillion times as strong as theirs didn't amount to zilch if you couldn't ship all those buggers over the straits in the face of the Danish navy...

In a sense the "teams" were rather set from the start of the war, and there was likely very little the Holy Roman Emperor could do to alter them. He was pretty much quaranteed the aid of his Habsburg kin in other realms, notably Spain and Austria, so much as their own issues (like the Spanish war in the Netherlands) allowed them to spare. The French Bourbons were pretty much quaranteed to happily support just about any enemy of the rival dynasty. The Swedish entry into the war, while not exactly quaranteed, was highly likely given the ambitions of its leaders and its rising stars; that that entry, should it happen, would be to the detriment of the Habsburgs, *was* a given, and the interests of the two dynasties were too diametrically opposed for there to be much possibility of "talking it out". The Danish were opportunists; mostly they were content to tax the trade passing through the straits, but weren't adverse to some military adventurism if they figured they could get away with it - both the Imperials and the Swedes had to divert armies to see off these ambitions on occasion. The Poles didn't really even care; I understand the reigning king would have been quite keen on meddling in the German war, but was bluntly overruled by the nobility who could see no point in such risky and expensive projects. The Dutch, well, they had their hands full holding off the Spanish, but other than that they made an absolute killing selling supplies to the foes of the Habsburgs... The English seem to have maintained a total hands-off approach to the Continental troubles.

And the political map of the Holy Roman Empire itself was an utter mess even at the best of times, with endless petty freetowns, baronies, sprawling fiefdoms, Papal holdings and God only knows what else with their monumental tangle of privileges, agreements, dues and so on making it hard to keep track of and steer in some common direction even when half of it wasn't in direct armed rebellion against the Emperor... Catholic lordlings tended to side with the Emperor, and Protestant ones usually sided with each other against him, but that wasn't even close to a given (many were only too happy to sit in the sidelines and try to pick the winning side) and the sheer naked political opportunism involved would have made Macchiavelli lift a quizzical eyebrow.

**cegorach** · 12-23-2005, 12:29

With full knowledge of Polish internal and external situation I would choose option 3, but with some modifications:

1. Mutual help, but rather in the form of money for Poland - imperial tropps usually caused more problems than they solved and their forces marching through Poland would cause some anti-Hapsburg feelings, especially if you consider the appaling lack of discipline at that time.
In return some form of Polish 'mercenary legion' would be a good option - in similar way to 1680s when before the official Polish army arrived Lubomirski's mercenary troops were already engaged.

2. Poland is already at war vs. Sweden and there is a growing tension with Russia and the Ottomans. For this reason money would be good as soon as possible to prolong the conflict with Sweden.

3. Some diplomatic efforts in fending off French diplomacy trying to mediate and to encourage Swedes to invade Germany is required. Countering French efforts is required the most.

Of course if I can propose something like this.

Regards Cegorach

**Kraxis** · 12-23-2005, 15:57

Originally Posted by Watchman

The Emperor could most likely have walked all over Denmark if he wanted to - indeed, I seem to recall there having been a brief skirmish between the Danes and the Imperials, which persuaded the former to remain uninvolved - but would then run into the exact same problem as the Swedes did late in the war when war broke out between them and the Danes. The hardened Swedish main field army in Germany, quick-marched to the Baltic, brushed aside all resistance with contemptuous ease... until they arrived at the shore. The thing is, the Danish "heartlands" were on the islands; and they were *the* naval superpower in the Baltic. Having a land army zillion times as strong as theirs didn't amount to zilch if you couldn't ship all those buggers over the straits in the face of the Danish navy...

Good analysis, similar to my own.

But you downplay the Batle of Lutter am Barenberg, it was a full battle and it was extremely close. It was indeed a Danish defeat, but it could as easily have gone the other way. Had that happened then who know what had happened... But it didn't and the Danish army was basically lost (mercenaries tend to not hang around after defeats).

**Lord Winter** · 12-23-2005, 18:55

With your decision made you begin to speech: “I will go with the advice of my ally Maximillian of Bavaria, the Holy Roman Empire will seek an alliance with the ruler of Poland.”

Out the corner of your eye you see Maximillian smile. You study the reactions of the other electors. One in particular jumps out to you; the elector of Saxony looks frustrated; his lands are closest to the Danish boarder. Making a note to do something about him you listen to the rest of the electors argue out the vices and virtues of the alliance.

After a short debate the majority of the electors agree to carry out your plan. The meeting is dismissed upon the pretext that you will organize all the details. You now must decide the fine points of the alliance.

1. On how the negations will be handled.

A. Go your self, it would probably be the most efficient but it would leave you in a position where you could not be able to contact the Holy Roman Empire without some delay in the case of the pending crisis with the Protestants.

B. Send Maximillian, he is the head of the catholic league after-all and may carry more weight in the negations to join the league if you chose to go that way.

C. Send one of the other electors of the Holy Roman Empire, you may want Maximillian advise latter and you may not be able to spare yourself now.

2. On how to support Poland

A. Keep the alliance secret and only send money in the hope of prolonging the conflict with Sweden.
B. Incorporate them in to the catholic league; they would then be able to request soldiers and funds. You could maybe get more of the league to pay and not just the Holy Roman Empire.
C. Directly declare war against Sweden and send in soldiers in support. While you would probably need the soldiers latter, there is the hope that with the extra soldiers you could decisively defeat the Swedes in battle,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a note historicly Denmark invades you in around 6 months so they have the majority of there forces ready and could very well invade if they saw a weakness or thought they could bribe someone to join there cause.