Alternate History:The Thirty Years War

**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.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 12-22-2005, 13:07

Hm, that's interesting. However, if the Swedish attack hits Poland first, I'm sure they'll be thankful for an alliance. Our benefit from it is clear in that we can then hopefully stop the Swedish army before it reaches German lands, and that two armies are stronger than one. My suggestion is that we go for the Polish alliance, but keep in mind that it might be broken at the most inappropriate time. But actually when I think about it the optimal thing seems to be to go for both 2 and 3, if possible.

I'm sorry, this is my first alternative history, so I don't know the exact rules.

Are we allowed to choose more than one option in cases where they aren't mutually exclusive?

**Franconicus** · 12-22-2005, 13:14

Sorry Legio, I do not agree. We have to erase Protestantism! We need one empire with one religion. Everything else can only be a temporary, tactical compromise.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 12-22-2005, 13:52

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Sorry Legio, I do not agree. We have to erase Protestantism! We need one empire with one religion. Everything else can only be a temporary, tactical compromise.

Ok then, I'm in a giving mood today so I'll change my plans according to your wish

But it'll make things much more difficult...

Either way my choice remains a combination of no. 2 and no. 3 or one of them if a combination is impossible...

**Kagemusha** · 12-22-2005, 17:15

Great! A new alternate history!Wait, we are the Habsburgs,Aargh now i have to go to war against my Finish country men fighting for the Swedish King.

Hmm.. anyway, I choose the option number 3.

**Kraxis** · 12-22-2005, 18:04

Good to see people have a good sense of strategy.

To attack Denmark looks like an easy option, the Catholic armies should fairly easily win against the Danish field armies... or so we would believe, but the battle of Lüberger Heide was extremely close and was mainly lost because Christian had only weeks ahead fallen from the battlements of Rendsborg, and it seems lost part of his sanity as a result of the impact. Also Denmark was at the time riddled with fortifications and had a very strong fleet that the HRE has no chance of opposing propely, so it would be Jutland alone after problematic assaults and sieges. Not good at all, but it gets worse.

Denmark and Sweden are not exactly at war, but it could hardly be closer to it (as usual at the time), not only would an attack rid us of the chance to ally with either against the other, but it would in fact put both on the same side. Sweden would likely jump at the chance to 'save' Denmark and thus appear that much better.

Lastly, the attack into Jutland would bottle up important armies in an easily blockaded peninsula. If the Swedish finished up in Poland, or made a seperate peace they would be in a superb position to take Hamburg and Lübeck cutting off the HRE army in Jutland, and with the Danish (and possibly the Swedish) Navy keeping taps on the sea traffic the army would have to surrender at some point.

**King Kurt** · 12-22-2005, 13:19

Looks like the begining of another great thread - what with rewriting WW2 history and helping King Stephen, how am I going to get any work done!

I say go with the Poles. Militarily they are strong , and they bring some contrasting troop types to the party. Their central European position also makes them strategically very important.