Mammoth work of scholarship on one of Europe's great catastrophes

Review of The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson

The 30 Years War is one of those watersheds, when an old order gives way to new directions that take centuries to work themselves out. According to Wilson, the roots of the conflict sprung from 2 essential sources: 1) the decline of the feudal order in Central Europe that had operated under the loose umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire and 2) the simmering religious wars pitting protestant against catholic. These unfolded symbiotically, but it was really the conflict of the princes and kings – attempting to consolidate their various forms of power in the emerging nation state – that employed the confessional question to their own ends, however sincere they might have been in their beliefs.

The Habsburgs (in both Spain and central Europe) were essentially feudal lords and indeed, Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. One of their most important powers was to confer nobility and authority on allies that would then be sworn to serve them in certain capacities, such as warfare against external enemies – the Turks or rival Christian kingdoms. They answered to a plethora of institutions that carried their own rights and privileges, the complexity of which is nothing short of extraordinary; there were hundreds of relatively autonomous territory-bound entities in what would become Germany in the 19^th century, including city-states, free cities, and duchies, each with their own historical perquisites in the hierarchy.

Often, Emperors served as arbiters to resolve conflicts between their princes and lords, but they also oversaw the installation of certain administrators and other officials to support the superstructure and finances of the Empire. Unsurprisingly, many princes wanted to establish their independence, in particular when it came to their confessional preferences. The Emperor could not exactly order them to do things, but had to both entice and threaten them.

With these tensions brewing, circumstances aligned themselves in the early 17^th century to favor prolonged war. First, after a long period of existential threat, the Ottoman Empire withdrew to fight in the east, depriving Christendom of a unifying external pressure.

Second, there was a weak Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II, who withdrew from his responsibilities as an honest broker for peace while beginning to impose a policy of replacing local protestant administrators with loyal catholic outsiders, threatening the beliefs (and careers) of innumerable princes and nobles in their fifes. His successor was also weak and pursued a rigid policy of installing catholic notables.

Third, the Habsburgs were entering a period of extreme financial indebtedness, depriving them of the resources needed to defend their territories and promote stability in multiple theatres at the same time, such as the war of independence in Holland.

Fourth, there was the rise of new powers, from the proto-absolutism in France to the military dynamism of Sweden's King, Gustavus Adolphus – centrifugal forces that added to the chaos.

Fifth, with a change in inheritance law, there were many disenfranchised princes trying to make their way as adventurers and courtiers. With the advancement of individuals such as Wallenstein, who achieved noble standing through opportunistic military exploits. No one completely controlled them; their motives were largely unfathomable, often reckless. They represented a dangerous mix of ambition and volatility.

Sixth, long brutalized in slave-like conditions, peasants participated in many of the conflicts or were preyed upon by occupying armies. Many of them revolted with extreme violence.

Once the war had broken out in 1618, sparked by a spontaneous "defenestration" in Bohemia – some protestant locals threw 2 catholic appointees out a 2nd-story window – the Holy Roman Empire convulsed into civil war, then while weakened outsiders attacked. As the theatres of war moved about inside the German territories, it took on a life of its own with occupiers wanting territories for their own ends (or seeking to extricate themselves while saving face) and princes hoping to achieve independence of control over their territory or liberty to pursue their faith. It just went on and on.

The resulting devastation makes World War II look almost like a minor skirmish. Some regions - from violence, plague, and emigration – lost between 10% and 60% of their populations, with up to a 25% loss of lives overall. Millions of livelihoods were destroyed or disrupted.

The resolution of the conflict occurred in the Treaty of Westphalia. 1648. Gustavus Adolphus had been killed and the various parties were finally exhausted. The German territories would take generations to recover. Spain was no longer a superpower, having lost the Netherlands and influence in central Europe. France emerged as the new great power. This reconfiguration signaled the end of the feudal era and the beginnings of both absolutism and the nation state. Gradually replacing the personal concerns and egos of princes, entire nations would enter negotiations roughly as equals with legitimate concerns and interests rather than as members of a feudal hierarchy with set-to obligations and privileges. In addition, religious toleration was finally established, after laborious negotiations of rights of minorities to gain legal sanction for their style of worship. In some ways, it was a major step into the modern age.

I do have my criticisms of the book. It is very hard to keep the various Rudolphs, Ferdinands, Philips, and Maximilians straight, and there is not much about their personalities or stories about them, except in a few rare cases. The military campaigns, covered in great detail, were also of little interest to me and bogged me down, though that is personal.

All in all, this is a great read on a fundamental period. There is also a fascinating analysis of the historiography of the conflict, how it was seen through the ages and what is wrong with the assumptions behind each approach. In other words, nationalists, Nazis, protestants, etc., saw different meanings according to their agendas. This prose is extremely dense, written in beautiful style, and succeeds in tying together the various strands of a war tragedy more complex than any save perhaps the fall of Rome or the world wars of the 20^thcentury.