Get 25% off an annual membership of CuriosityStream using code sandrhoman: : curiositystream.com/sandrhoman Also, let us know what you think about this format. Some seemed to like our other Video in this format on the battle of Breitenfeld a lot, but the statistics don't really reflect that.
I haven't watched the entire Lützen video yet but this battle format is great. Please continue with this. An hour by hour analysis of Nördlingen, Wittstock, Jankau or Freiburg would be fantastic.
Love the format. Having an in depth description following the flow of battle is not only informative, it's a great way to turn history from simple numbers and names into something more human and personal.
I’m actually most impressed by the fact that Wallenstein managed to build up an army that could hold its own against the battle hardened Swedish veterans from hastily recruited bohemians. This and the fact that both sides held up morale in such a carnage show not only the skill of the generals but also of the officers making up the backbone of such armies.
I agree. If you want so see another example of this, look at the battle of Freiburg 1644. The Duke of enghien with his french army vs de mercy and his bavarian force. The french suffered around 6000 casulties and still kept attacking untill nightfall.
A lot of the regiments Wallenstein recruited were actually hardened veterans. Gotz's Cuirassier's for example had been in service since 1626. Furthermore, Wallenstein and Holk had a reputation of cruel disciplinary measures for disorder and cowardice. They would have their own men executed without hesitation.
@@rayzas4885 this is nothing compared to what the armies did to the local people. think of Magdeburg for instance. or of the fate of many villages. the details are really gruesome. they did horrific things, especially to the women.
Its interesting how this battle has affected language - I still call a heavy fog a "Lützenfog", and my grandma always used to say "I know my Pappenheimer" whenever someone did something she expected.
Hallo alter Schwede, Luetzennebel? habe ich jetzt das erste Mal gehoert. Hier mal was fuer den Kenner. Was ist Bluemchenkaffee und was ist Schwerterkaffee? Hinweis: wenn Du das nicht weisst, frage Deine Oma, .... die wird lachen 🙂
just wanted to say you are one of my favorite history TH-camrs. I500s and 1600s warfare seems to be overlooked quite a bit so I appreciate you making these videos.
I totally agree with the analysis at the end of the video. Since so much of popular history focuses on battles where one side has a spectacular victory, Luetzen might appear to the casual viewer as an unimaginative slugfest, but if both armies are competently led and organized, then every clever maneuver and trap meets mediocre results, and the character strengths of the fighting force such as the spirit of the troops and the quality of the subordinate officers means the difference between survival and catastrophe. War is not all genius generals and elite troops. How every individual soldier decides to conduct himself on the battlefield determines what happens on the battlefield. Be it modern low-intensity conflict where a soldier has to make a split second decision whether the vehicle barreling down the road at him is going to explode and take out his whole squad or it's just an oblivious civilian, or be it 17th century warfare when a soldier was facing a wall of pikes stabbing at him- there's an officer somewhere around trying to figure out how to make chaos look like order but there is never an officer there whispering in his ear telling him what he should think or do. There are two points on the late stage of the battle I think are relevant. I very much doubt Bernard's decision to renew the attack was simply a matter of ambition. Attempting to break contact with a strong enemy to the front and a difficult obstacle to the rear could have been a disaster, especially since retreating after difficult combat and the death of the king would instill a sense of defeat in the men and lead to panic. I also think that Wallenstein made the right call to retreat. If fighting continued the next morning, even (relatively) fresh troops might not have been enough to stem the tide of an enraged enemy fighting on deadly ground that had shown a willingness not only to fight but to fight to the last. Even if Wallenstein had managed to destroy the Protestant army, it would be so costly that men would not fight for him anymore and he would be politically finished. The outcome in war can often be predicted more accurately by which side is more desperate to win than by which side has the material advantage. Commanders are officers who know where and when to place their troops to use their weapons to maximum effect. Leaders are officers who understand the motives of their troops and can get them to see their task to the end, but also understand the limits of their credibility in asking men to die. Wallenstein and King Gustav were very different men. One was the cynic's most beloved cynic, the other was the dreamer's most beloved dreamer, but they were both leaders who looked at their soldiers as human beings with their own needs and interests, and led on the basis that they were giving the men something they were willing to risk death for in exchange for their willingness to die. King Gustav's advisor Oxenstierna thought rightly that wars did not begin and end based on hopes and dreams but based on the motives and concerns of rulers, realpolitik, the balance of power etc. However, King Gustav understood what Oxenstierna did not, that men will not die for the motives and concerns of rulers, that realpolitik isn't real on a battlefield, but the hopes and dreams of the soldiers who must decide to die in order for battles to be won are very real on a battlefield. While the enemy can't argue with a bullet to the face, first you have to decide it's worth taking one yourself in order to deliver it. Gustavus Adolphus isn't remembered to this day because of a few tactical innovations which were adopted so quickly by his opponents that it was a zero sum game. He's remembered because he was such an inspirational leader that his leadership survived him in death and affected the outcome of a battle, and therefore a war, and therefore the history of the world. Luetzen is not remembered because it was a day's long slaughter that was tactically inconclusive. The battle demonstrated that the Protestant troops were now motivated to fight and die for their own cause, that they didn't see themselves as pawns in the power struggle between princes in which their religion was merely a political consideration for princes to use against each other and their subjects. By fighting so valiantly in such desperate circumstances, the common soldier of Gustav's army showed the Catholic princes that even if they could destroy or subjugate their rival Protestant princes, they would destroy themselves in the process. By preserving his own army, Wallenstein ensured that the Protestant side could not gain a quick victory and that destroying the Catholic side would require a war of attrition they could not win. There would be no more wars of religion in Germany, and while religious suspicions and undertones of religion would persist in the struggles between the princes, the wholesale slaughter and persecution of the people based on their religion would end. In a word, both sides would have to come to terms with their inability to destroy the other, and mutual disgust would have to turn into grudging respect and eventually back into brotherhood. The Battle of Luetzen directly contributed to lasting religious harmony in Germany. It's a stark contrast with countries like the UK which never had a full blown war of religion and yet animosities have persisted to the point where there are still occasional brawls between atheists identifying as Protestants and atheists identifying as Catholics. It's patently absurd. Speaking from the perspective of a Protestant who grew up with a beloved aunt who was a Catholic nun, I am deeply disgusted by people LARPing the wars of religion and they should be ashamed of themselves, but I also understand the feeling of sympathizing with your team when you look back at yesteryear's disasters. There are two moments in the Thirty Years War which are the most memorable images in the mind's eye, and they are closely related. The first is the Spanish pikeman standing in the last tercio at Rocroi, completely surrounded, helpless in the face of artillery but still defiant. The second is the Protestant soldier at Luetzen, covered in black powder soot, sweat and blood, but going back across the field of his fallen comrades to attack again against all odds for grief over the only leader who ever showed genuine concern for him. If you're Catholic, the Protestant soldier is an icon smasher, he would be your enemy. If you're Protestant, the Spanish pikeman is the enforcer of the Inquisition, he would be your enemy. But you can't help but see the genuine love in him, that he is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for what he believes in even if you believe he's wrong. And it makes no sense, the most disgusting human characteristic, that we butcher each other because we can't get along, displays the most noble human characteristic, that we're willing to give our own lives out of love for each other. And I suppose that's why we find stories of battle so interesting, even if we've seen war with our own eyes; that even within the driest, most apolitical tactical analysis we can see the full range of humanity good and evil, and try to understand it better without the stress of thinking about what we'll cut each other's throats over tomorrow.
@@Thuggle_Bus The Battle of Luetzen was historically significant because both sides eventually realized as a result that they would not be able to destroy each other, which allowed for some level of religious reconciliation in Germany.
Germany and Bohemia lost over 30% of its population, in some regionsup to 70% perished. THAT is the thing that counts, and the fact how pointless and unnecessairy this immense slaughtering was, from the standpoint of the common working people. If you still wish to ponder about the glory of war, google "Magdeburg" resp. "Magdeburgisieren". That said, I very much appreciate you articulating your thoughts so eloquently for us, what I said is not meant as an offense and I don't claim having some kind of moral high ground.
@@battlez9577 if you can read german, sure, once it has been corrected and graded, yes. I will hand it in in a few days. Correction phase will take 6 weeks. Afterwards, I could sent it to you, via discord for example.
@@ct7567CaptRex It will be made public on the internet sooner or later I take it, as they all are,more or less?. Would also want to read it so the name of the thesis here should be enough?
This video is top-notch. Please keep them coming. The Pike & Shot era deserves more recognition. Any chances you'll cover the English Civil War or Time of Troubles in the future?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Oh, I see. Well, do all of them. There's so much to chose from in English history. It's like a real-life Game of Thrones or something lol
@@signoguns8501 you want real life GoT? Look at the Byzantine history instead. Or just open a page in Wikipedia describing any big battle of theirs. I guarantee there's gonna be a section on *Insert byzantine noble name here* betraying the emperors forces.
@@Br1cht naaaahhhh anecdotal is just modern day code for I wasn't there I didn't see it so it couldn't be true, it's a nice way of saying I have faith in nothing.
It's worth noting that at this time, the Imperial Cuirassier's were a different grade entirely. They were extremely heavily armored (as a whole) , well-disciplined and rode large, strong horses. They were different from other elite cavalrymen of the time ( Winged - Hussars and their Swedish counterparts) in that they functioned more like an armored fist that focused on raw strength over maneuverability.
@@mrspidey80 yes tanks is am acurate description. In the tradition of frankish tank riders as under Karl Martell 732 a.c. They were heavily specialized shock troops that could only fight a shorter amount of time and were immobile. But a charging attack had to be one of the most devastating attacks in all military. They literally destroyed the arabs despite their superiority in numbers. It was 15 000 Franks vs 80 000 arabs
Lützen: -6000 casualties- a perfect example how destructive the 30 years war was. WW1: -200000 casualties to capture 20m of wasteland- A total win chaps, well done.
tbf, no battle in the 30 Years War truly captures the horror of that period. That real damage is happening outside the field of battle. Also, just as a random math example, about 100,000 people died in Swedish service. That doesn't sound like much, but then the entire Swedish population in 1650 was probably about 1,000,000 - one dead for every ten citizens (but of course taking into account mercenaries and so on the Swedish got off comparatively lightly).
Entente nationalism: Allowed in 2023, democracy, good (except Russia now apparently) Central power nationalism: BAD, FORBIDDEN, THOUGHT CRIME, AUTHORITARIAN, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO Our The Democracy!
@@Sp4mMe Yeah Sweden proper about a million. As 1650 Finland's population was 450 000, and it was about 1/3 of the core kingdom's population (where the military was conscripted). So, about 1,5 million.
Different times, much less population. But it is still true that WWI is in TOP5 when comes the most battle deaths in one day in history (20-25 000 DEATHS, not casulties). Even when it was not the most destructive war in history (WWII is still by far the worst). WWI was just an awkward time when technology outpaced the military strategy. BTW, look at Napoleonic wars. 20 000 casulties was a good say for Napoleon.
It is good, though I wish there was more details about the cavalry charge that apparently has a lot of detail. We mostly got the anecdotes about feet, and someone being shot in the head and fighting on.
@@josipboban6976 puff why would someone who lives a poor life constantly raided by turks die for some german emperor? Fighting some guys from the north? Just take the easy money and make your life easier. I doubt that any of us would have acted diffrently
The 30-year-war was such a drastic war in Europe, which had effects that last to today. Hell, my family probably came down to Germany from Sweden around the time of the 30-year-war, so it is personal for me and many others around Europe.
It was a long time since Sweden's military overachievements were celebrated in school if anything it's regarded as shameful warmongering, so no you weren't taught that unless you went to school in the 1960-thies or something.
@@Jauhl1 Close. Mid 1970's... Nowadays swedish kids misses out on a lot of classic history. A shame really. History puts things in context and makes it easier to understand the modern world.
@@Jauhl1 that's the same everywhere anyway, giants of the past get buried as if their lives were a shameful stain in history, Caesar probably is more more popular now than many local heroes and even if he committed far greater atrocities than most of the kings and generals whose memory is today ignored or disrespected and this comming from a biased Caesar fan.
@@g.sergiusfidenas6650 It's "safer" to admire the heroes of a dead civilisation than a living one I guess, because we've made chauvinism the ultimate evil.
When I learned about this stuff in school in Sweden during the late 2000's/early 2010's, it generally was presented to me in a way that I think is fair, that being as a large loss, a series of blunders that could've led to greatness, yet still a good presentation of our past military might. Sadly, I think that this is only due to the high quality of my early history teachers, who taught with a passion for history. In the medium sized town where I live, history class is now adays mostly just about remembering the names and intentions of people half-way across the globe, while large events like battles and even wars that have heavily affected the current culture of my own country are just footnotes at this point, mostly due to the fact that history is often taught by people who have no interest in history.
the historical consensus is that Sweden won this battle, although it was a pyrrhic victory. This video is mostly great but its conclusion sort of overglosses this fact and seems a bit biased
I'm currently reading the book 1632 by Eric Flint. It's about the story of a small west virginian town from the year 2000 suddenly appearing in medieval germany during the 30 year war. I thought this was about that for a second and was confused at why everything sounded off.
It seems to me that the Imperials triumphed because Wallenstein was able to predict exactly what the Swedes would do and counter it. The Imperials in good cover ready to repel attack combined with fog making it harder to command Swedish forces spread over the whole battlefield and it seems little wonder that they lost. Whether the Imperials used Tercios or Swedish-style formations, I think the bigger determining factor was the lack of time for Swedish guns to soften up their enemies and the the fact that the Swedish beigades were counter-attacked in a coordinated manner and lacked supporting units to back them up.
This is a superb piece of work: you've given the right amount of emphasis to the strategic background for the battle and then used very effective graphics to make its course clear.
Incredibly well done video! Graphics were really good, narration was easy to understand, and you took a complicated subject like the Thirty Years War and you had me from start to finish wrapped up in it. That's very impressive! Well done and God bless you and your team, my friend!
Not without a reason! Light Croat cavalry had been raiding, looting, sabotaging and defending against Ottoman border towns for decades, earning a lot of experience in asymmetrical warfare. Also: sources state civilian population in German lands were terrified by their appearance. Greetings from Croatia
Interesting vid. To me, several aspects of this battle are remarkable: 1. The Swedes making their first infantry assault piece meal with three largely unsupported formations in the center, allowing them to be outflanked by both Imperial infantry and cavalry. 2. Imperial infantry and cavalry formations on multiple occasions winning 1v1 engagements against their Swedish opponents. This is even more stunning as you say the Imperial army was mostly freshly raised, using their enemies' tactics against an army of veteran Swedes. 3. Gustavus Adolphus, as king and veteran of a string of engagements, leading an initial flanking attack by a cavalry wing from the front like a mere captain, allowing himself to come into harm's way when things went south. 4. The Swedish army essentially deciding to fight to the death once they heard of their king's demise. Remarkable as this would have meant the war was all but lost. Granted, their retreat would have been difficult, but halting that initial wave of panic on hearing the news and inspiring them to press the attack until the very end must have been no mean feat. I understand there are limits to both the vid's scope and format, as well as available research, but I was hoping for a bit more discussion of above points in your conclusion, as well as the armies' composition in general (nationalities, mercenaries, training and equipment), as there appears to be such a discrepancy in veterancy. Your ending fell a bit flat to me as it mostly offered that age-old adagium that war, yes truly, is hell.
Above the crypt in Riddarholmen Church which contains Gustavus body, there reads an inscription. In Augustiis intravit / Pietatem Amavit / Hostes Prostravit / Regnum Dilatavit / Suecos Exaltavit / Oppressos Liberavit / Moriens Triumphavit. "In difficulty he began / Piousness he loved / His enemies he defeated / The kingdom he expanded / The Swedes he exalted / The oppressed he freed / victorious in death.
@@ct7567CaptRex Him too, though as a Swede I am more inclined to remember Gustav and his deeds, though peace be upon every one that perished in the war.
@@terachad1231 of course. Also, did you know that both Pappenheim and Tilly died because of anti infantery canon fire? I wrote my bachelor thesis about the useage of artillery during the 30 years war and found this out. Tilly got hit by a Doppelhaken, which is basically two musketbarrels, but longer, mounted on wood and wheels. That shattwred his leg and he died. Pappenheim got gutted by either Kanister shot or small arms fire as far as I read. But the Kings death was equally brutal. Shot and stabbed multiple times.
It gave me chills when the word got out on the battlefield that the king was dead. You could feel their rage and sorrow and here them scream "kungen är död!", then they did one last push, all in. Very beautiful
If you watch this with closed captions, 25:12 Adam Trackhawk is Count Adam Trcka, Bohemian nobleman and brother in law of Wallenstein, who was murdered in the Eger Bloodbath with Wallentstein and other noble relations.
Thank you for this & your hard work. An excellent presentation. Here in the UK the Thirty Years War is overlooked as it co-insides with the run up to The English Civil War. I first got interested after watching the film "The Last Valley" with Michael Caine & Omar Sharrif. The only book to read was C V Wedgewood's The Thirty Years War. British Historians seem not to be interested in studying/writing about it.
A bloody good video this was. Certainly tells fairly well a terribly bloody battle. I wonder what would've happened had the Swedish king not been killed in this battle.
Fun fact you can actually go and see Streiff, (Gustavus horse for the battle) he is preserved at the Royal Armory Museum (Livrustkammaren) in Stockholm.
Napoleon: "And it was here, yes here indeed, that Pappenheim launched his ill-fated charge and- WHO LE FUCK IS FIRING THEIR CANNONS WHILE I'M LEADING A TOUR"
The battlefield can be found around 51.255, 12.16 on maps. It is still easy to recognise due to the rivers, although the Mühlgraben is called Ellerbach now. Many things there were named after Gustavus Adolphus - the modern road that replaced the sunken road, a school in Lützen, and a nearby memorial said to have been placed on the exact spot where his body was found.
The Swedish army's hatchet was the legendary Finnish cavalry that finished off the Catholics. It was a fearless and brutal killing machine led by Torsten Stålhandske. Hakkapeliitas are remembered with horror in Central Europe even today.
Yes, Very True And they were barely mentioned in this video
3 ปีที่แล้ว +1
Woou! This format of explain the battles are awesome. In truth i needed a good explanation of how was this battle of Lützen and you talk about it in imparcial way; since the result of this confrontation was inconclusive, despite the fact that many do not want to accept it. I hope to see in the next video, the battle of Nördlingen, the clash of two of the most powerful armys in the war (Spanish Tercios vs Swedish regiments).
Very well done, the whole series. A pieorid of history not tought or studied in the US. I like the graphics and maps which help to show what happened and when.
There was a second Battle of Lützen in Napoleon's 1813 Campaign. It is said Napoleon was acting as a tour guide to his entourage on the old battlefield, when the battle started.
About the so called "tercio formation", even in its peak of usage wasn't used a lot. Mainly was used for positioning the forces before the battle started, but usually, the arquebusier and musketeer wings were put on front sides to maximize firepower since the beginning of the sistem. In battle the "tercio" formation were only used when were a danger of envolvement of the enemy, but with enough cavalry to protect the flanks, weren't used so much. In fact, in the greatest victories os the spanish tercios, they didn't used the "tercio" formation. In fact, the name "tercio" referred as a formation is wrong (in the primaries sources it is called "castle squadron"), and probably this makes a great misunderstanding of how the people fight at that time, and a lot of people think the tercios only fought in "tercio formation", when in reality were the less used. A good source of the spanish-italian formations are the primary source "De'll Ordinance de battaglia" (1583) from the autor Cesare D'Evoli. What is true is that Gustavus Adolphus elongated the formations and made them smaller, but making formations smaller was something common at thar time in all Europe, because they knew that a smaller formation were easier to control and more effective (thats the reason why the most common spanish tactic was to take loose arquebusiers and musketeers from main formations and attack with them alone getting ahead from the main army, as in the spanish victory of Gembloux (1578) using only loose arquebusiers and cavalry.
Immidiately after his great victory at Breitenfeld, which won him fame as "The Lion of the North" the "lion" began to blunder in ernest, which was overstretching his lines of communication and supply , making worthless conquests and staggering around aimlessly in Germany, too late realizing , that it was a rather large country. Finally topping this with the last monstrous mistake , instead of leading from behind , stumbling about in the fog of Lützen, which cost the great military man his life. In fact, the battle was a draw, neither side won.
I do not understand why Adolphus had to do battle on the ground chosen by Wallenstein. Did he not know where Wallenstein was? Did Wallenstein gamble on what Adolphus would do? Didnt Adolphus scout the area beyond the river? Did Adolphus not know where Wallenstein was and where Pappenheim would be comming from, so he could faint an attack on Wallenstein and use the bulk of his army to engage Pappenheim?
Thick mist dampens the powder and spoils accuracy, with muskets. That's probably why the deeper, pike-heavy formations of the Imperials thrashed the Swedes so badly. The caracols which could charge out of the mist to hit the Swedes with lance or pistol out of nowhere likely had a devastating effect as well. And of course, the Swedes may've been exhausted from the long march and their supply situation. Normally the attacker has the advantage with fog. But it seems the Swedes failed to coordinate properly, where the front line units were left unsupported and locally outnumbered, and the cavalry wasn't being much help. Seems to have been failures in command and control.
Get 25% off an annual membership of CuriosityStream using code sandrhoman: : curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
Also, let us know what you think about this format. Some seemed to like our other Video in this format on the battle of Breitenfeld a lot, but the statistics don't really reflect that.
I haven't watched the entire Lützen video yet but this battle format is great. Please continue with this. An hour by hour analysis of Nördlingen, Wittstock, Jankau or Freiburg would be fantastic.
Video was very good.
Very nice animations, good overview on what happened on the battlefield.
Good background and other information.
In my opinion, this battle format has already surpassed those of Historia Civilis, Kings and Generals, BazBattles, etc.
Love the format. Having an in depth description following the flow of battle is not only informative, it's a great way to turn history from simple numbers and names into something more human and personal.
Personally I love the format. From a business standpoint, however, you should keep an eye on the statistics and decide accordingly.
I’m actually most impressed by the fact that Wallenstein managed to build up an army that could hold its own against the battle hardened Swedish veterans from hastily recruited bohemians. This and the fact that both sides held up morale in such a carnage show not only the skill of the generals but also of the officers making up the backbone of such armies.
I agree. If you want so see another example of this, look at the battle of Freiburg 1644. The Duke of enghien with his french army vs de mercy and his bavarian force. The french suffered around 6000 casulties and still kept attacking untill nightfall.
A lot of the regiments Wallenstein recruited were actually hardened veterans. Gotz's Cuirassier's for example had been in service since 1626. Furthermore, Wallenstein and Holk had a reputation of cruel disciplinary measures for disorder and cowardice. They would have their own men executed without hesitation.
@@seanbeahn6895 Yep, most probably big part of that force were people who were fighting under his command in 1620's.
@@wojtek1582 how many of those would have been recruited by Tilly though?
in every war first and foremost the regular soldiers have to be praised
"One of the most gruesome encounters of the Thirty Year War..."
That, that says a LOT.
And Magdeburg Wedding says:"..."
it actually doesn't. the military encounters aren't the reason why the thirty years war was so destructive.
@@Kammerliteratur There are many battles where the opposing army just gets straight up annihilated throughout the 30 years war so it does
@@rayzas4885 this is nothing compared to what the armies did to the local people. think of Magdeburg for instance. or of the fate of many villages. the details are really gruesome. they did horrific things, especially to the women.
Great job!
Recognition of a great channel, by a great channel. Gotta love the history community on TH-cam.
thanks guys!
@@nApucco could not agree more to that!
Im so hoping for a future collab, that would be awesome.
Gotta love the history community.
Please never stop making these, i could watch a 4 horu version and wouldnt become bored.
Agreed
As a Croat i must say, we are the experts in stealing and running away
I imagine the little light cavalry formation going "iiiiiuiuiuiu!!!" as it skirts around the battle to find loot.
@@Derna1804 lol, is that supposed to be an insult?
@@zivkosmrtic7373 No, it's just supposed to be funny. I don't know why they're old ladies at a wedding, it just fits.
@@Derna1804 I would lose my mind and go berserk
Viking at heart
Its interesting how this battle has affected language - I still call a heavy fog a "Lützenfog", and my grandma always used to say "I know my Pappenheimer" whenever someone did something she expected.
was heisst denn hier Oma? ich benutze gerne den Pappenheimer Vergleich.
Kann man ja auch schoen ins Englische uebersetzen als Cardboardhomer.
@@SamuelLanghorn Grandma - my fathers mother - Swedish from Göteborg.
Hallo alter Schwede, Luetzennebel? habe ich jetzt das erste Mal gehoert.
Hier mal was fuer den Kenner. Was ist Bluemchenkaffee und was ist Schwerterkaffee?
Hinweis: wenn Du das nicht weisst, frage Deine Oma, .... die wird lachen 🙂
In Dutch it also exists: "hij kent zijn Pappenheimers": he knows his Pappenheimers. Means: he knows what he is talking about.
"Why do I hear boss music?"
-Gustavus Adolphus and Albrecht von Wallenstein, November 16th 1632
Guts ist here!
Definitely a l battle of level bosses.
Adolphsus 😳
Actually November 6th.
just wanted to say you are one of my favorite history TH-camrs. I500s and 1600s warfare seems to be overlooked quite a bit so I appreciate you making these videos.
They really are. So are late 17th and early 18th century histories.
I totally agree with the analysis at the end of the video. Since so much of popular history focuses on battles where one side has a spectacular victory, Luetzen might appear to the casual viewer as an unimaginative slugfest, but if both armies are competently led and organized, then every clever maneuver and trap meets mediocre results, and the character strengths of the fighting force such as the spirit of the troops and the quality of the subordinate officers means the difference between survival and catastrophe. War is not all genius generals and elite troops. How every individual soldier decides to conduct himself on the battlefield determines what happens on the battlefield. Be it modern low-intensity conflict where a soldier has to make a split second decision whether the vehicle barreling down the road at him is going to explode and take out his whole squad or it's just an oblivious civilian, or be it 17th century warfare when a soldier was facing a wall of pikes stabbing at him- there's an officer somewhere around trying to figure out how to make chaos look like order but there is never an officer there whispering in his ear telling him what he should think or do.
There are two points on the late stage of the battle I think are relevant. I very much doubt Bernard's decision to renew the attack was simply a matter of ambition. Attempting to break contact with a strong enemy to the front and a difficult obstacle to the rear could have been a disaster, especially since retreating after difficult combat and the death of the king would instill a sense of defeat in the men and lead to panic. I also think that Wallenstein made the right call to retreat. If fighting continued the next morning, even (relatively) fresh troops might not have been enough to stem the tide of an enraged enemy fighting on deadly ground that had shown a willingness not only to fight but to fight to the last. Even if Wallenstein had managed to destroy the Protestant army, it would be so costly that men would not fight for him anymore and he would be politically finished.
The outcome in war can often be predicted more accurately by which side is more desperate to win than by which side has the material advantage. Commanders are officers who know where and when to place their troops to use their weapons to maximum effect. Leaders are officers who understand the motives of their troops and can get them to see their task to the end, but also understand the limits of their credibility in asking men to die. Wallenstein and King Gustav were very different men. One was the cynic's most beloved cynic, the other was the dreamer's most beloved dreamer, but they were both leaders who looked at their soldiers as human beings with their own needs and interests, and led on the basis that they were giving the men something they were willing to risk death for in exchange for their willingness to die.
King Gustav's advisor Oxenstierna thought rightly that wars did not begin and end based on hopes and dreams but based on the motives and concerns of rulers, realpolitik, the balance of power etc. However, King Gustav understood what Oxenstierna did not, that men will not die for the motives and concerns of rulers, that realpolitik isn't real on a battlefield, but the hopes and dreams of the soldiers who must decide to die in order for battles to be won are very real on a battlefield. While the enemy can't argue with a bullet to the face, first you have to decide it's worth taking one yourself in order to deliver it. Gustavus Adolphus isn't remembered to this day because of a few tactical innovations which were adopted so quickly by his opponents that it was a zero sum game. He's remembered because he was such an inspirational leader that his leadership survived him in death and affected the outcome of a battle, and therefore a war, and therefore the history of the world.
Luetzen is not remembered because it was a day's long slaughter that was tactically inconclusive. The battle demonstrated that the Protestant troops were now motivated to fight and die for their own cause, that they didn't see themselves as pawns in the power struggle between princes in which their religion was merely a political consideration for princes to use against each other and their subjects. By fighting so valiantly in such desperate circumstances, the common soldier of Gustav's army showed the Catholic princes that even if they could destroy or subjugate their rival Protestant princes, they would destroy themselves in the process. By preserving his own army, Wallenstein ensured that the Protestant side could not gain a quick victory and that destroying the Catholic side would require a war of attrition they could not win.
There would be no more wars of religion in Germany, and while religious suspicions and undertones of religion would persist in the struggles between the princes, the wholesale slaughter and persecution of the people based on their religion would end. In a word, both sides would have to come to terms with their inability to destroy the other, and mutual disgust would have to turn into grudging respect and eventually back into brotherhood. The Battle of Luetzen directly contributed to lasting religious harmony in Germany. It's a stark contrast with countries like the UK which never had a full blown war of religion and yet animosities have persisted to the point where there are still occasional brawls between atheists identifying as Protestants and atheists identifying as Catholics. It's patently absurd. Speaking from the perspective of a Protestant who grew up with a beloved aunt who was a Catholic nun, I am deeply disgusted by people LARPing the wars of religion and they should be ashamed of themselves, but I also understand the feeling of sympathizing with your team when you look back at yesteryear's disasters.
There are two moments in the Thirty Years War which are the most memorable images in the mind's eye, and they are closely related. The first is the Spanish pikeman standing in the last tercio at Rocroi, completely surrounded, helpless in the face of artillery but still defiant. The second is the Protestant soldier at Luetzen, covered in black powder soot, sweat and blood, but going back across the field of his fallen comrades to attack again against all odds for grief over the only leader who ever showed genuine concern for him. If you're Catholic, the Protestant soldier is an icon smasher, he would be your enemy. If you're Protestant, the Spanish pikeman is the enforcer of the Inquisition, he would be your enemy. But you can't help but see the genuine love in him, that he is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for what he believes in even if you believe he's wrong. And it makes no sense, the most disgusting human characteristic, that we butcher each other because we can't get along, displays the most noble human characteristic, that we're willing to give our own lives out of love for each other. And I suppose that's why we find stories of battle so interesting, even if we've seen war with our own eyes; that even within the driest, most apolitical tactical analysis we can see the full range of humanity good and evil, and try to understand it better without the stress of thinking about what we'll cut each other's throats over tomorrow.
Thanks for the essay mate
Well i dont know why i read through this but i dont regret it
TLDR?
@@Thuggle_Bus The Battle of Luetzen was historically significant because both sides eventually realized as a result that they would not be able to destroy each other, which allowed for some level of religious reconciliation in Germany.
Germany and Bohemia lost over 30% of its population, in some regionsup to 70% perished. THAT is the thing that counts, and the fact how pointless and unnecessairy this immense slaughtering was, from the standpoint of the common working people. If you still wish to ponder about the glory of war, google "Magdeburg" resp. "Magdeburgisieren".
That said, I very much appreciate you articulating your thoughts so eloquently for us, what I said is not meant as an offense and I don't claim having some kind of moral high ground.
This battle is one of my main examples of how artillery was used in this war in my bachelor thesis.
Would it be possible to read your thesis
@@battlez9577 if you can read german, sure, once it has been corrected and graded, yes. I will hand it in in a few days. Correction phase will take 6 weeks. Afterwards, I could sent it to you, via discord for example.
I would aslo be interested in your thesis, german is not a problem ;)
@@LarpFan17 sure. Just give me a discord tag or an email and ill send it to you once it is corrected.
@@ct7567CaptRex It will be made public on the internet sooner or later I take it, as they all are,more or less?. Would also want to read it so the name of the thesis here should be enough?
You are one of the most underrated history channels in this platform
This video is top-notch. Please keep them coming. The Pike & Shot era deserves more recognition. Any chances you'll cover the English Civil War or Time of Troubles in the future?
That would be great!
Yes! Wars of the Roses please!!!
@@signoguns8501 Well I meant English Civil War 1642-1651 but hey, War of the Roses is also an interesting topic.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Oh, I see. Well, do all of them. There's so much to chose from in English history. It's like a real-life Game of Thrones or something lol
@@signoguns8501 you want real life GoT? Look at the Byzantine history instead.
Or just open a page in Wikipedia describing any big battle of theirs. I guarantee there's gonna be a section on *Insert byzantine noble name here* betraying the emperors forces.
I was the king of Sweden... that's gotta be one of the greatest last words in all of history.
Cue Viva la Vida - Coldplay
If it had been true...
Anecdotal at best, his murders is supposed to be the source but who really knows?
@@Br1cht naaaahhhh anecdotal is just modern day code for I wasn't there I didn't see it so it couldn't be true, it's a nice way of saying I have faith in nothing.
@@Br1cht also killing in Battle is not Murder it's killing, there's a difference.
Sweds: For the king!!!
Imperials: ah s#$% here we go again.
"Arise, Riders of Pappenheim" lmao excellent reference
Spears shall be Shaken! Shields shall be Splintered! Today is a Sword Day, a Red Day, Ere the Sun Rises!
@@joaqu7002 DEAAATH!
It's worth noting that at this time, the Imperial Cuirassier's were a different grade entirely. They were extremely heavily armored (as a whole) , well-disciplined and rode large, strong horses. They were different from other elite cavalrymen of the time ( Winged - Hussars and their Swedish counterparts) in that they functioned more like an armored fist that focused on raw strength over maneuverability.
So, tanks, basically...
@@mrspidey80 yes tanks is am acurate description. In the tradition of frankish tank riders as under Karl Martell 732 a.c. They were heavily specialized shock troops that could only fight a shorter amount of time and were immobile. But a charging attack had to be one of the most devastating attacks in all military. They literally destroyed the arabs despite their superiority in numbers. It was 15 000 Franks vs 80 000 arabs
@@listrahtes Franks at Poitiers/Tours were mainly heavy infantry, I think.
Lützen: -6000 casualties- a perfect example how destructive the 30 years war was.
WW1: -200000 casualties to capture 20m of wasteland- A total win chaps, well done.
Nice generic strawman about ww1
tbf, no battle in the 30 Years War truly captures the horror of that period. That real damage is happening outside the field of battle.
Also, just as a random math example, about 100,000 people died in Swedish service. That doesn't sound like much, but then the entire Swedish population in 1650 was probably about 1,000,000 - one dead for every ten citizens (but of course taking into account mercenaries and so on the Swedish got off comparatively lightly).
Entente nationalism: Allowed in 2023, democracy, good (except Russia now apparently)
Central power nationalism: BAD, FORBIDDEN, THOUGHT CRIME, AUTHORITARIAN, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO Our The Democracy!
@@Sp4mMe Yeah Sweden proper about a million. As 1650 Finland's population was 450 000, and it was about 1/3 of the core kingdom's population (where the military was conscripted). So, about 1,5 million.
Different times, much less population. But it is still true that WWI is in TOP5 when comes the most battle deaths in one day in history (20-25 000 DEATHS, not casulties). Even when it was not the most destructive war in history (WWII is still by far the worst). WWI was just an awkward time when technology outpaced the military strategy.
BTW, look at Napoleonic wars. 20 000 casulties was a good say for Napoleon.
“I was the king of Sweden”
I’m not crying, you’re crying
I'm celebrating
Yeah it was heartbreaking
"The King is dead... Revenge the King!"
If not the latest couple of years haven’t revealed that “truth” is so very malleable for those in power I don’t know what to tell you.
Europe would be catholic if he didn't put his greasy heretic hands in Germany..
Now, we need the battle of Nordlingen, and an in-depth analisis of the use of tactical rolling in XVI century warfare
Hour by hour breakdown is an amazing format. Thanks for all the work you put in to these videos
It is good, though I wish there was more details about the cavalry charge that apparently has a lot of detail. We mostly got the anecdotes about feet, and someone being shot in the head and fighting on.
Damn man I’m impressed by how fast you make these long videos, amazing work.
Agree the amount of quality videos he can crank out blows me away. I love the super seige videos especially, so much detail.
Hey algorithm,
Recommend this to others.
Shed the light of knowledge on people's minds.
agreed! if only
My quarantine became incredably interesting for half an hour
croats have axes in ther hands
@@josipboban6976 that looks more like a war hamer than an axe
@@mihovilraboteg6160 we always go for the money ak bagage train
@@josipboban6976 puff why would someone who lives a poor life constantly raided by turks die for some german emperor? Fighting some guys from the north? Just take the easy money and make your life easier. I doubt that any of us would have acted diffrently
@@mihovilraboteg6160 you have a point
The 30-year-war was such a drastic war in Europe, which had effects that last to today. Hell, my family probably came down to Germany from Sweden around the time of the 30-year-war, so it is personal for me and many others around Europe.
These types of video are like an event for me. I'm so excited!
Gustavus's ghost: You suck Wallenstein! I'm dead and still winning!
He's lucky he did not live to see the destruction of the Swedish army at Nordlingen.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 I suppose if he had been there the Swedes would not have lost
@@larsbackstrom3036 They still would of lost.
The powerful Swedish volley fire was rendered moot by the Spanish Tercio by simply kneeling.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 hey planet king any particular reason why you use the picture of Bazan / Santa Cruz as your profile?
@@g.sergiusfidenas6650 Just for fun
16:55 nice touch.
Aren't the first seconds of the following music not a slight homage to the "Empire strikes back theme"?
I remember being taught in the fifth grade that this, Lützen, was a glorious swedish victory...
Do I need to say that I went to school in Sweden?
It was a long time since Sweden's military overachievements were celebrated in school if anything it's regarded as shameful warmongering, so no you weren't taught that unless you went to school in the 1960-thies or something.
@@Jauhl1 Close. Mid 1970's... Nowadays swedish kids misses out on a lot of classic history. A shame really. History puts things in context and makes it easier to understand the modern world.
@@Jauhl1 that's the same everywhere anyway, giants of the past get buried as if their lives were a shameful stain in history, Caesar probably is more more popular now than many local heroes and even if he committed far greater atrocities than most of the kings and generals whose memory is today ignored or disrespected and this comming from a biased Caesar fan.
@@g.sergiusfidenas6650 It's "safer" to admire the heroes of a dead civilisation than a living one I guess, because we've made chauvinism the ultimate evil.
When I learned about this stuff in school in Sweden during the late 2000's/early 2010's, it generally was presented to me in a way that I think is fair, that being as a large loss, a series of blunders that could've led to greatness, yet still a good presentation of our past military might.
Sadly, I think that this is only due to the high quality of my early history teachers, who taught with a passion for history. In the medium sized town where I live, history class is now adays mostly just about remembering the names and intentions of people half-way across the globe, while large events like battles and even wars that have heavily affected the current culture of my own country are just footnotes at this point, mostly due to the fact that history is often taught by people who have no interest in history.
the historical consensus is that Sweden won this battle, although it was a pyrrhic victory. This video is mostly great but its conclusion sort of overglosses this fact and seems a bit biased
I'm currently reading the book 1632 by Eric Flint. It's about the story of a small west virginian town from the year 2000 suddenly appearing in medieval germany during the 30 year war. I thought this was about that for a second and was confused at why everything sounded off.
It seems to me that the Imperials triumphed because Wallenstein was able to predict exactly what the Swedes would do and counter it. The Imperials in good cover ready to repel attack combined with fog making it harder to command Swedish forces spread over the whole battlefield and it seems little wonder that they lost.
Whether the Imperials used Tercios or Swedish-style formations, I think the bigger determining factor was the lack of time for Swedish guns to soften up their enemies and the the fact that the Swedish beigades were counter-attacked in a coordinated manner and lacked supporting units to back them up.
The Moment when I go to TH-cam and there is a video about the war of my hometown. It's very interesting good job👍
This is a superb piece of work: you've given the right amount of emphasis to the strategic background for the battle and then used very effective graphics to make its course clear.
You die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
Gustavus and Wallenstein respectively.
It's a nice weekend when SRH uploads a new video :D
Incredibly well done video! Graphics were really good, narration was easy to understand, and you took a complicated subject like the Thirty Years War and you had me from start to finish wrapped up in it. That's very impressive! Well done and God bless you and your team, my friend!
Talking about the Croats like that...made it sound like they were only good for looting supply trains :D
Not without a reason!
Light Croat cavalry had been raiding, looting, sabotaging and defending against Ottoman border towns for decades, earning a lot of experience in asymmetrical warfare. Also: sources state civilian population in German lands were terrified by their appearance.
Greetings from Croatia
that's the job of light cavalry, and they were evidently very good at their job. they werent supposed to charge face-first against heavy cavalry
Oh yes details
The spice and salt of a story, video, battle, movie or anything.
Interesting vid. To me, several aspects of this battle are remarkable:
1. The Swedes making their first infantry assault piece meal with three largely unsupported formations in the center, allowing them to be outflanked by both Imperial infantry and cavalry.
2. Imperial infantry and cavalry formations on multiple occasions winning 1v1 engagements against their Swedish opponents. This is even more stunning as you say the Imperial army was mostly freshly raised, using their enemies' tactics against an army of veteran Swedes.
3. Gustavus Adolphus, as king and veteran of a string of engagements, leading an initial flanking attack by a cavalry wing from the front like a mere captain, allowing himself to come into harm's way when things went south.
4. The Swedish army essentially deciding to fight to the death once they heard of their king's demise. Remarkable as this would have meant the war was all but lost. Granted, their retreat would have been difficult, but halting that initial wave of panic on hearing the news and inspiring them to press the attack until the very end must have been no mean feat.
I understand there are limits to both the vid's scope and format, as well as available research, but I was hoping for a bit more discussion of above points in your conclusion, as well as the armies' composition in general (nationalities, mercenaries, training and equipment), as there appears to be such a discrepancy in veterancy.
Your ending fell a bit flat to me as it mostly offered that age-old adagium that war, yes truly, is hell.
I am so bored of all this "war is hell" mass produced stock line by history channels, I am not dumb
Indeed Hector
Above the crypt in Riddarholmen Church which contains Gustavus body, there reads an inscription. In Augustiis intravit / Pietatem Amavit / Hostes Prostravit / Regnum Dilatavit / Suecos Exaltavit / Oppressos Liberavit / Moriens Triumphavit.
"In difficulty he began / Piousness he loved / His enemies he defeated / The kingdom he expanded / The Swedes he exalted / The oppressed he freed / victorious in death.
I cry at this battle, rip Gustavus
Also, rip Pappenheim
@@ct7567CaptRex Him too, though as a Swede I am more inclined to remember Gustav and his deeds, though peace be upon every one that perished in the war.
@@terachad1231 of course. Also, did you know that both Pappenheim and Tilly died because of anti infantery canon fire? I wrote my bachelor thesis about the useage of artillery during the 30 years war and found this out. Tilly got hit by a Doppelhaken, which is basically two musketbarrels, but longer, mounted on wood and wheels. That shattwred his leg and he died. Pappenheim got gutted by either Kanister shot or small arms fire as far as I read. But the Kings death was equally brutal. Shot and stabbed multiple times.
It gave me chills when the word got out on the battlefield that the king was dead. You could feel their rage and sorrow and here them scream "kungen är död!", then they did one last push, all in. Very beautiful
Always happy to see a new video on your channel. Keep up the good work!
You must be trained in history cause I love how you do historiography in these videos. It's a great way of showing the layman how history is done
These videos always blow my mind, i dont "ring the bell" often, but i dont want to miss a minute!
man I see you everywhere bruh
Great content, you are one of the best!
Damn, that was such a ride! Too bad Lion RIP, wonder how war will end.
If you watch this with closed captions, 25:12 Adam Trackhawk is Count Adam Trcka, Bohemian nobleman and brother in law of Wallenstein, who was murdered in the Eger Bloodbath with Wallentstein and other noble relations.
Thank you for this & your hard work. An excellent presentation. Here in the UK the Thirty Years War is overlooked as it co-insides with the run up to The English Civil War. I first got interested after watching the film "The Last Valley" with Michael Caine & Omar Sharrif. The only book to read was C V Wedgewood's The Thirty Years War. British Historians seem not to be interested in studying/writing about it.
May Gustavus rest in peace. He will always be remember.
A bloody good video this was. Certainly tells fairly well a terribly bloody battle. I wonder what would've happened had the Swedish king not been killed in this battle.
17:00 mark, the Empire counter attacks using the 'Guts' kurrasiers!? ''Beserk ~Forces~'' theme intensifies!
*götz :P
@@SandRhomanHistory Ty for the quick reply!
A fine Easter present!
Great video, here have a little gift for the algorithm...
Fun fact you can actually go and see Streiff, (Gustavus horse for the battle) he is preserved at the Royal Armory Museum (Livrustkammaren) in Stockholm.
Absolutely great video. You really captured the bravery and horror of this battle.
What an amazing video! Very well made =)
Napoleon: "And it was here, yes here indeed, that Pappenheim launched his ill-fated charge and- WHO LE FUCK IS FIRING THEIR CANNONS WHILE I'M LEADING A TOUR"
Gustavus Adolphus: We have an army!
Wallenstein: We have a Holk!
Soldier: Who are you?
Gustavus: I was the King Of Sweden
Soldier: Shoots Gustavus in the temple*
A peasant and a King are equal on the battlefield.
Nice 😸
Soldier: Kdo jste pane?
Gustavus: Vad sa du till mig?
*mutual confusion
Heh, was.
@@baabaaer that is what he actually said
The battlefield can be found around 51.255, 12.16 on maps. It is still easy to recognise due to the rivers, although the Mühlgraben is called Ellerbach now. Many things there were named after Gustavus Adolphus - the modern road that replaced the sunken road, a school in Lützen, and a nearby memorial said to have been placed on the exact spot where his body was found.
9:08 Where did Pappenheim manage to get those sweet 19 century sabres! 😄
some Up-Timer probably had one collecting dust in their attic
I didn’t know the king’s death was so awful. What a sad ending.
Said as an imperial sympathiser.
The music this channel uses is exquisite. Reminds me of the best pieces in the Final Fantasy series.
I resisted do this for way to long, this might be the last chance, so:
A time of religion and war
Legends tell the tale of a lion ...
This beast in the shape of a man with a dream to rule sea and land ...
And all those who stand in his way die by God and victorious arms...
Oh shit, the Sabaton's fans strikes again, these history nerds are worse than k-pop fans
I loved the episode V title
your battle reports are the best, SandRoman!
Amazing video, thank you for your hard work
The Swedish army's hatchet was the legendary Finnish cavalry that finished off the Catholics. It was a fearless and brutal killing machine led by Torsten Stålhandske. Hakkapeliitas are remembered with horror in Central Europe even today.
Yes, Very True And they were barely mentioned in this video
Woou! This format of explain the battles are awesome. In truth i needed a good explanation of how was this battle of Lützen and you talk about it in imparcial way; since the result of this confrontation was inconclusive, despite the fact that many do not want to accept it. I hope to see in the next video, the battle of Nördlingen, the clash of two of the most powerful armys in the war (Spanish Tercios vs Swedish regiments).
Very well done, the whole series. A pieorid of history not tought or studied in the US. I like the graphics and maps which help to show what happened and when.
Not relevant to our lives
This channel is great! Covering many significant yet less well known European historic events.
who was your history teacher?
Gott mit uns! Thank you for this great video. Very inspiring for painting my miniatures for the battle of lützen. 👍
This was an awesome account, even-handed and thorough. Thank you for some sterling content!
Love the animation you guys do.
Thank you so much for this!
Yessss I've been looking forward to a video on Lützen for a long time
Weiter so!
Gustavus Adolphus vs Wallenstein = Tactical genius vs Strategic genius
Good presentation. Very understandable.
Another fantastic video. Honestly you deserve some kind of award. And more views anyway.
I live just a few minutes away from the Alte Veste in Zirndorf, didnt know there was a somewhat major battle of the 30 years war here!
Excellent video !! Thanks for the great work!!!
Didn't know the location of the Battle of Lützen and the Battle of Leipzig were so close to each other. Two great battles with only 10km between them.
There was a second Battle of Lützen in Napoleon's 1813 Campaign. It is said Napoleon was acting as a tour guide to his entourage on the old battlefield, when the battle started.
A fascinating character, think Goethe wrote a play about him. Lived in one of his old holdings in Czech Republic btw 😄🙂
Gustav: "Call an ambulance!" _Draws sword_ "But not for me!"
*dies*
@@theholyinquisition389
*Gets looted*
About the so called "tercio formation", even in its peak of usage wasn't used a lot. Mainly was used for positioning the forces before the battle started, but usually, the arquebusier and musketeer wings were put on front sides to maximize firepower since the beginning of the sistem. In battle the "tercio" formation were only used when were a danger of envolvement of the enemy, but with enough cavalry to protect the flanks, weren't used so much. In fact, in the greatest victories os the spanish tercios, they didn't used the "tercio" formation. In fact, the name "tercio" referred as a formation is wrong (in the primaries sources it is called "castle squadron"), and probably this makes a great misunderstanding of how the people fight at that time, and a lot of people think the tercios only fought in "tercio formation", when in reality were the less used. A good source of the spanish-italian formations are the primary source "De'll Ordinance de battaglia" (1583) from the autor Cesare D'Evoli.
What is true is that Gustavus Adolphus elongated the formations and made them smaller, but making formations smaller was something common at thar time in all Europe, because they knew that a smaller formation were easier to control and more effective (thats the reason why the most common spanish tactic was to take loose arquebusiers and musketeers from main formations and attack with them alone getting ahead from the main army, as in the spanish victory of Gembloux (1578) using only loose arquebusiers and cavalry.
"of course we cant cover al... SKIP SKIP SKIP SKIP SKIP" lol
Immidiately after his great victory at Breitenfeld, which won him fame as "The Lion of the North" the "lion"
began to blunder in ernest, which was overstretching his lines of communication and supply , making worthless conquests and staggering around aimlessly in Germany, too late realizing , that it was a rather large country. Finally topping this with the last monstrous mistake , instead of leading from behind , stumbling about in the fog of Lützen, which cost the great military man his life. In fact, the battle was a draw, neither side won.
Another excellent video. I absolutely love your content.
I love to watch these videos while playing eu4
Great detailed video. Keep it up!
This battle was truly a sign of things to come for centuries afterward. The horrors of early modern war were upon them.
I do not understand why Adolphus had to do battle on the ground chosen by Wallenstein. Did he not know where Wallenstein was? Did Wallenstein gamble on what Adolphus would do? Didnt Adolphus scout the area beyond the river? Did Adolphus not know where Wallenstein was and where Pappenheim would be comming from, so he could faint an attack on Wallenstein and use the bulk of his army to engage Pappenheim?
Yeah, while watching the video, I was rooting for Gustavus to flank Wallenstein's army. But that's the benefit of hindsight.
Thick mist dampens the powder and spoils accuracy, with muskets. That's probably why the deeper, pike-heavy formations of the Imperials thrashed the Swedes so badly. The caracols which could charge out of the mist to hit the Swedes with lance or pistol out of nowhere likely had a devastating effect as well. And of course, the Swedes may've been exhausted from the long march and their supply situation.
Normally the attacker has the advantage with fog. But it seems the Swedes failed to coordinate properly, where the front line units were left unsupported and locally outnumbered, and the cavalry wasn't being much help. Seems to have been failures in command and control.
What kind of Weapon do you think Albrecht was a practitioner of, or tended to use?
Thanks!
"Croats did what they do best and attacked Swedish baggage train" lol.
Well done - great presentation.
Great Vids. I most certainly subbed
Amazing Explanation