Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Oh, I can't resist - another question. I'm using up my quota...
Was there an upside to the 30 years war? It seems to be THE most bloody and pointlessly destructive conflict I've come across (and there are such a lot to choose from....)
The only possible upside I can think of is that (a) Protestantism was NOT wiped out and (b) it was so ghastly that it exhausted everyone, and they got some peace until the Marlborough wars.
Was it the first Big War of Ideology?
Eliza.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 2
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Friday, 20th January 2006
The Moslem expansion, the Crusades, the Hussite revolt, the French Wars of Religion, the Dutch Revolt were all wars of ideology predating the 30 Years War - although the Dutch Revolt more or less merged into it. In fact, the 30 Years War wasn't a single conflict at all but a series of independent ones. For example, battles such as Lutzen or Nordlingen (Swedes v Imperialists) had little to do with the original revolt in Bohemia 15 or so years earlier.
It was certainly a fertile source of religious propaganda. The one that always amuses me is the way in which Parliametarian writers compared the "sack" of Brentford by the Royalists (which amounted to little more than a few broken windows and trampled gardens) with the sack of Magdeburg (an entire city levelled and thousands slaughtered).Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 3
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Re: message 1.
Eliza,
first big war on ideology? No, I don't think so. More a use by the mighty of ideology, where stupid ones were led into, to use it for their own purposes. Later it were perhaps groups grown mighty by the ideologies and using it for their own purposes? In any case it was always a struggle for might IMHO (big smile).
Was in december last year in Prague looking for the windows of the "defenestrations", there were two of them. One was the start of the Thirty Years War. So they say...Although it can also be as with the shot at Sarajevo...
As one of the Low Countries been interested as the 30 years is the last part of the "Eighty Years War" or as the English say: "the Dutch revolt?". If the thread get interesting I will join. Otherwise will start some replies if I have completed all my other replies of my very big backlog (smile again).
Will use the 30 years war also in my reply to my dear friend Steve P, who is still waiting for a reply from me...BTW. 1648 can be seen as an 1815 avant la lettre. It settled also the map after a "multi-countries" European conflict.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. And thank you for all the recent "history starts" on these boards.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 4
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 20th January 2006
I was going to try and argue back saying 'International wars of ideology' but I guess the Dutch wars count as international (v Spain).
It's interesting you cite the crusades. I've never thought of them in that light, because they've always seemed to be so transparently a ploy by the Pope and the Kings to get rid of a bunch of troublesome knights by sending them off to biff someone else, that I've always discounted the religious aspect....
Or, to put it another way, the religious aspect was not a debate, as it was Prod vs Catholic, within the same culture and populations. It was simply a 'familiar vs alien' opposition.
It never struck me that much intelligent debate took place in the Crusades, compared with the Reformation/Counter Reformation, which was crucial to the development of democratic forms of government becuase, for the first time in Europe, 'saying no - protesting' became not just possible, but powerful.
In haste - Eliza.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 5
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Hi Liza,
I suppose the upside of the 30 yrs war was that it gave a break to those European countries that didn't really get all that involved. For instance Britain, because she was and still is an island, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth because, as I keep stressing, it did not do religious hatred and intolerance.
And the funny thing is that in 1948, when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, real trouble began for those countries lucky enough to have avoided those terrible conflicts. It was in 1648 that the second phase of the English Civil War broke out, which was eventually to lead to Charles I losing his head and Britain briefly becoming a republic. And it was in 1648 that the Chmelnicki Revolt broke out, which was to lead to a whole string of disasters that were to prove even more fatal to the Polish-Lithuanian Republic. Oh and in 1648 the Swedes finally came to liberate Prague from Catholic oppression, but in the meantime the inhabitants had become pretty Catholic themselves, so they refused to let the Protestant Swedes in. So the Swedes did something they frequently liked to do in the 17th century, they sacked the part of the city they had (regards to Hasse
).
Cheers, JozefLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 6
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
Eliza
Well, it's certainly true that intelligent debate wasn't the favourite modus operandi of many participants in the Crusades! Nobody could ever accuse Bohemond of idealism, for example, and it's a safe bet that a lot of the people who left on the First Crusade wouldn't have been greatly missed by their neighbours. Nevertheless, all (or almost all) of them were unquestioning Christians according to the standards of their time, even if they were simultaneously violent, grasping hard men. It was all very simple to them: Christians Right, Moslems Wrong. Cut and dried, beyond any possibility of debate - the most basic and intractable type of ideological conflict.
Bohemond had little to lose but Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Godfrey de Bouillon did - they were wealthy men. It wasn't just greed that sent them east, and the same is true of lesser participants who had nothing concrete to gain. You couldn't follow the lifestyle of a knight without falling into mortal sin, and they'd all been told where that would land them - but here was an opportunity to have their sins remitted while following the life they'd been bred to. And they had a chance of enriching themselves as well. Also, the many poorer people who followed Peter the Hermit were certainly motivated by religious enthusiasm.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Up side to the 30 Years War?
Spain exhausted itself and ceased to be Top Nation.
France overstretched itself, which meant it couldn't be Top Nation for very long, which left the way clear for...
The United Kingdom to become Top Nation! Hurrah!
Unfortunately, in 1918, The USA became Top Nation and History came to a .Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 8
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Yup, guess that's an upside. Bit tough on the victims (ie, the people of Germany/low countries/Poland/Bohemia etc etc wherever the armies raged). But it's a good thing to look for the positives!
I'm always curious, when I read or watch stuff on the English Civil Wars, whether they take into account the 30 years war - it cannot but have had a huge pscyhological influence on the participants in the British troubles, but I'm not sure I see it mentioned much. Perhaps it's just a no-brainer.
Eliza.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 9
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Eliza7Beth
You seem to be expanding the thread with the impact of the 30 year's war to the Civil Wars in Britain?
Well, I think you shouldn't underestimate that quite a few of the English, Scottish and Irish soldiers and officers had seen active service during the war in Europe, thus bringing their experiences to Britain - e.g. Prince Rupert of the Palatinate (Kurpfalz), who was definitely a better soldier than Charles 1.
And an aside to PaulRyckier
In message 3, you mention having gone out of your way, to Prague, in order to see the actual windows from where the "defenestrations"!
As an anecdote I've read somewhere, that one of the Imperial servants who were "defenestrated" (is there such a word?) in other words thrown out of the window by the mob, survived and later on in his carreer were ennobled by the Habsburg Emperor of the day as "von Hohenfallen".
Whether true or not I think of it as a good yarn.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 10
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Gosh, I'd forgotten about Prince Rupert etc, of course. Silly me.I suppose there could be an argument for saying that hte British Civil wars were 'just' the 30 years war carried on in the British Isles???
Defenestration must be a real word - it was on American television! (probably came right after exsanguination). The nobles definitely survived I know, I read that. Thus they were not terminated with extreme prejudice....
Eliza.
PS - I don't think they were defenestrated by the mob, but by the Protestant councillors or whatever. I shall go and check.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Seem to remember that James I and Buckingham managed to get us at war with both sides simultaneously at one point - with the French over the Hugenots, and with the Spanish over the Palatinate (solidarity with the in-laws).
Don't think the 30 Years War contributed to the causes of the ECW, or had much of a psychological impact on the English population before the war. It did provide a body of Englishmen with recent military experience to apply to their respective causes (but also, Irish war). The brutal behaviour learned on the continent was applied to the domestic conflict, although the cruelty shown to the Irish (or suspected Irish) seems to have been domestic nastiness.
Wonder about the influence of the ECW on the 30 Years War - kept the English out of the continental war at a fairly key time?
Defenestration must be a real word - I wrote it umpteen times at A Level. It was a traditional way of showing displeasure (still is in some circles).Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 12
Posted by Michal_the_curious (U2948103) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
.</quote>
And an aside to PaulRyckier
In message 3, you mention having gone out of your way, to Prague, in order to see the actual windows from where the "defenestrations"!
As an anecdote I've read somewhere, that one of the Imperial servants who were "defenestrated" (is there such a word?) in other words thrown out of the window by the mob, survived and later on in his carreer were ennobled by the Habsburg Emperor of the day as "von Hohenfallen".
Whether true or not I think of it as a good yarn.</quote>
Just to put things straight - they all survived (three of them) there was a lot of mess where they fell and they were only badly bruised.
The first defenestration (Hussites did it) was far more successful as the mob was waiting under the window with pikes...Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 13
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
although the cruelty shown to the Irish (or suspected Irish) seems to have been domestic nastiness.
Ìý
Though it might have something to do with the behaviour of those Irish who came over to Scotland & fought for ChasI under Montrose...Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 14
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
although the cruelty shown to the Irish (or suspected Irish) seems to have been domestic nastiness.
Ìý
Though it might have something to do with the behaviour of those Irish who came over to Scotland & fought for ChasI under Montrose...Ìý
Interesting point. Main flaw to it is that Montrose was Charles II's bastard son, so that happened yet... (hey, wasn't John Churchill in on that business?).
Also, a bit tough on the Welsh and the Kernow lot, who got malletted on suspicion. And killing women and children is always offside.
Personal opinion, main fear of the Irish was that they were loyal to the King. I once upset anAmerican by suggesting to him that the Irish tragedy was that they had conquered two Empires, but neither of them for themselves...Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 15
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Sorry, Monmouth, not Montrose.
But English behaviour toward Irish doesn't seem to have been revenge for anything, simply fear.
Willing to reconsider - source?Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 16
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
I think the English kill the Irish becasue the Irish are so irritating.
Sorry, bit tasteless. Probably true though. I'd better shut up, as, having insulted the Scots I have recourse to claiming a Scots spouse, but no Irish relatives at all, so that just makes me offensive.
ElizaLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 17
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Sorry, Monmouth, not Montrose.
But English behaviour toward Irish doesn't seem to have been revenge for anything, simply fear.
Willing to reconsider - source?Ìý
Fave secondary source for the behaviour of Montrose's Irish: Raymond Campbell Paterson's 'A Land Afflicted: Scotland and the Covenanter Wars, 1638-90' (John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1998).
The parliamentarians knew all about this because the Scots Covenanters withdrew part of their army from the war in England to deal with Montrose & I suspect Cromwell may have regarded the Irish as having 'set the tone' of the war, as far as they (the Irish) were concerned.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 18
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Thanks for the reference.
My impression is, though, that anti-Irish feeling and routine murder of prisoners and camp followers in Englnd predated the Scottish episode.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Re: Message 9.
Niels,
thank you for the mentioning. After having seen the fenestra's I did some research. Even seen the photographs on interenet of the two places in Prague where it all happened, but too lazy and no time to seek them back.
Only this as a first start:
Thank you very much for the mentioning and cheers,
Paul.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Re: Message 12.
Michal,
my Czechian friend, we crossed already paths on the old boards I think and had a nice conversation, don't remember about what.
Michal have visited your land now and your capital. The museum at the top of the Wladislav square (market?) was very interesting. About the postdistribution among others. The halls with the stones also, and a special remark about the in my eyes excellent exhibition of the Celts and other excavations. In one word an excellent museum. And I have seen museums all over the world.
Was a first time in Czechia by car in 1976 (now by flight) in the sad Communist time but nevertheless it was a very interesting experience.
Oh and I forgot the bookshops, every one hundred meters and big (four stores), all books. Met a lot of interesting people, an American couple who was back from the US, to their home town from where they leaved 26 years ago to live there again, a student in one of the bookshops, who knew it all (without influencing by me) about Belgium, even about all the Flemish/Walloon stuff (most British I met didn't knew about it). Really excellent people over there, also the Slovakes (I heard...)
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 21
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Eliza
Altough the firts part of the 30 year war,had some truth to had been a religious war.
Was the second part with Sweden and France versus Germany and Spain desidely not.
France did felt itself surrounded by the Hapsburgs in Spain and Germany,so the Catholic France did find itself ganged up with the protestant Sweden.
Sweden was afraid of a united Germany under the emperor of the HRE(Holy Roman Empire),and the emperor desicion to build a fleet in the Baltic was the last straw.
Sweden stod then in a favorable position,having secured the Denmark-Norway frontiers,pushed back the Russians well behind the Ladoga,had gained control of some Polish cities with their custom income ending the Polish kings claim on the Swedish crown(altough the war with Polen ended in a stale mate).
Sweden also had a good modern army,good generals with Gustaf Adolf in the wan,and a good political strateg in Axel Oxienstierna.
So Sweden attacked on the pretext to defend itself and the protestant course.
The German protestant states did firstly welcome this since it strenghten their weak position in the ongoing peaceprocces.
The Battle of Breitenfeld 1631 changed this,when the Swedish army shown they could take on everything the emperor had.
Swedens first goal was to take control of the north,and wrecking the south,thus gaining controll of the Baltic sea.
This goal did change with Gustafs quick victories changing to making the goal to have Gustaf elected emperor.
A thing that could very well succed if not he had been killed,so Sweden returned to the first goal,and did succed more than was begged for when it come to wrecking the south.
The Swedish armies even left Germany and attacked Denmark on two fronts 1645,Denmark did get help by the Dutch fleet and the combined Danish Dutch fleet stoped an ocupation of Denmark
Sweden did only get some provinces from Denmark in the peace.
So the Swedish armies turned south and was standing outside Wienna and has just plundered Praque when at last the peace came 1648.
It must have been a terrible war I have seen figures that up to some 70% of the German population was killed in this conflict.
As a curiosa some relatives to my wife in Bavaria still have some shots in their shloss walls,from Swedish guns,and the nearby town was garrisoned by the Swedes a couple of years.
HasseLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 22
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
re 19
Paul
Thank you for showing me that link.
You couldn't possibly know, that you pointed towards my largest (self-acknowledged)vice: reading dictionaries, historical subjects, almost any kind.
re 20
HasseTh
I'l be happy to learn some of the Swedish points of wiev on the subject of that war!!
What we (danes) were (perhaps still are) taught was, that after Denmark (perhaps just the king?) had sought to interfere in order to protect the Protestant faith in Northern Germany, and infamously was beaten badly by the Imperial troops, Sweden interfered and in mysterious ways, or at least ways unknown to the then danish military leaders, fought succesfully against the Imperial troops before you treacherously turned against us and occupied most of this country, until a combined Dutch-Danish navy beat you, and that war was more less declared a draw.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 23
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Sorry, not re 20 but re 21
Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 24
Posted by Michal_the_curious (U2948103) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Greetings Paul,
It's great you remember me. I had a different nick but it was me.
The square is called Venceslas' Square (although I prefer the Czech form - Vaclav) He is a patron saint of our country and his statue is in the upper part of the square just below the museum you mentioned.
Your second quess was not short of the mark at all. The former name used to be Horse Market.
I was there a few months ago while doing my Proficiency exam and I visited one of the bookshops - Luxor Palace it is called. I was astonished at its size and the variety of English books I found there.
The museum is really beautiful and I regret I don't have time to go there as I live in the north Bohemia (near Liberec). It is very sad though that this jewel we should be proud of is suffering from the nearby traffic and it has been severely damaged. It needs full repair and assanation, but where we will get the money is a mystery.
Have a great day and see you later on these pages.
MichalLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 25
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Nielsen
Both Denmark and Sweden have had the dream of making the Baltic a Mare Nostrum.
To only king succeding this is Ivar Vidfamne of Skåne.
Denmark was near to do it under Valdemar Sejr,altough his two inavasions of Sweden was stoped at Lena and Gestrilen near lake Vättern,and later under Erik af Pommern in the Kalmarunion,until the Swedes did rise in rebbelion under Engelbrekt.
Sweden was near in the early 14 cent under Magnus Eriksson,but was stopped by the great plauge and not at least by Valdemar Atterdag,
and later in the mid 17 cent under Karl X Gustaf.
Its probably a pity for the Nordic countries that the Kalmar union didnt work .
That the Swedish armies did win in Germany was no mysteries,Europes armies was then basicly build around the pikemen and was fighting after that tactic which was introduced by the Swiss a about two hunred years earlier.
Gustaf Adolf introduced the tactic that would rule the comming two hundred years.The big unvieldy pike terticoes was replased by smaller units in line with high firepower suported by a lighter,faster and more numrous artillery,suported with fast cavalry units that fought in melee instead of the until then used caracole to use pistols.
The enemy was litterary blasted to pieces,if they didnt control a fortified high and the Swedes was stupid enough to attack like Nördlingen 1634.
The two frontal attack on Denmark 1645,Horn from Sweden into Skåne and Torstensson from Germany into Jylland was logical.
At the time of 1645 was the emperors resistanse broken his last armies was defeated and he was asking for armistice and peace.
So Torstensson stopped the march to Vienna.
To have controll of the Baltic you need to controll the Sound and Stora Bält,wich naturally Denmark did,so the orders was given and Denmark was invaded.
To have either Denmark or Sweden in controll of the Baltic thus dictating the trade of the North ,Poland and Russia was a nightmare to the Dutch. So a Dutch fleet was send and together with the Danish fleet succeded to make the war a stalemate.
Meanwhile had the emperor gained courage when he did see that the Swedish army had left,and put up some more armies.
So the peace at Brömsebro with Denmark was quickly signed,just leaving a couple of provinses to Sweden.
So the Swedish army turned around marched south again.
HasseLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Friday, 27th January 2006
HasseTh
My belief is, that it was to the better that neither of the kingdoms succeeded in those days.
When you're writing of Lena and Gestilren, I'm a little ashamed to admit that my last encounter wer trough the novels by Jan Guillou, which I found well written, exiting and, I suspect, rather well researched.
The Kalmarunion might have worked, if there had been a developed bureaucracy, thrustworthy officials on all levels of local government, and ample means of communications.
Besides it would have taken quite a spell of time to root out the inherent mistrust among the nobles of the different countries, and at that time I believe that the Catholic Church decidedly were centres of power - yet again they were `international´ (focused on Rome and Avignon!), only the bishops and archbishops tended to be nobles appointed for reasons of family and ability to pay a hefty `fee' to the popes coffers.
And, to make the Kalmarunion work it would, last but not take least sound men and women to govern it at all times. I wonder if they were as rare then as now...
For these reasons I think that such an area, though it might have existed for some time, eventually would have been broken by e.g. the up-and-coming Netherlands, perhaps the Hanse or any other power who would feel threathened or attracted by the potentials of the area, pure speculation on my side!
If you think it interesting i'll come back later.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 27
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
Re: message 22.
Niels,
thank you for your kind reply.
Warm regards.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
Re: message 24.
Michal,
thank you very much for your explanations and for sharing somthing of your personal experiences in Prague as someone from near Liberec. And yes the money to refurbish the museum, it is always a problem everywhere. The cleaning and repair of the outside of the San Salvator cathedral in Bruges had cost more than a 160 miilion £ spread over several years.
BTW on my first visit in 1976 I was staying at Konopishtjé (spelling?) Some 6 miles under Prague? Saw the "schloss" and the dry castle moat and there was a black bear in it. The bear will be a bit of age now?
And reread "the good soldier Schweik" from Hasek. I saw once one of the several films about it, I think it was the black and white American one from 1961.
You revived my recent visit. I had a "cathedral" concert in a hall of a "library" with violins...
Thanks again for the reply and see you later at another opportunity.
Kind regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 29
Posted by Michal_the_curious (U2948103) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
PAUL,
I had a look at Konopiste pages and it seems the bears are still there. :o))) or maybe some new ones. I haven't been to the chateaux personally, so I cannot give you any more info.
My favourite place is Cesky Krumlov. There is a beautiful castle there as well as very nice buildings and country around. We used to go there every year, but now my daughter has been born and she is too young to travel. However, I recommend everyone to visit the town.
You can see some photos on cesky-krumlov dot turistik dot cz and I guarantee that you will like them.
cheers
Michal
ps. BTW Krumlov also has its own bears in the castle moat.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 30
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Nielsen
Agreed that it would take a good admistrators to bind the Kalmarunion togheter,and as you say their isnt that much of god men or women in politics today.
As a tidbit the union Erik of Pommern was near to break the power of the Hansa and would probably succeded,if not the Engelbrekt revolt wich was bankrolled by the Hansa had been such success.
HasseLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 31
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Re: Message 29.
Michal,
thank you very much for this interesting and kind reply. I want to go to Cracow in Poland this or next year, perhaps I try to visit Cesky Krumlov in the meantime.
Warm regards,
PaulLink to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
-
Message 32
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
Thank you for your kind words Paul.
Regrettably I haven't been much on the boards recently, as pressing needs have taken me to other places.
And Hasse,
In an aside, Erik of Pommern was married to Philippa of England, a daughter of Henry III (Bolingbroke).
But, was it a result, when Queen Margrethe had died, and Erik assembled his court in Nyborg 1413, where he declared that the young heirs to the county of Holsten had forfeit their rights to the duchy of Slesvig, and the following rebellion, that Sweden started looking to the nobles of Holsten as fitting mates to keep the Danes from gaining advantages in Sweden?
As you'll understand I don't know much of the Swedish side of the discussion, but I'd be very interested in hearing them.Link to this forum: Was there any upside to the 30 years war?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.