400 years ago, in May 1618, indignant Czechs threw out of the window of the castle tower of Prague Castle two imperial governors and their secretary (they all survived). This seemingly insignificant incident, later called the Second Prague Defenestration, was the beginning of the Thirty Years' War - the bloodiest, brutal and devastating military conflict in Europe until the world wars of the 20th century. How were modern Europe and the current world order born in the darkness of the bloody events of the 17th century? Whose side was Russia on and who did she feed then? Did the Thirty Years' War give birth to aggressive German militarism? Is there a typological similarity between it and the ongoing ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle East? All these questions were answered by the candidate of historical sciences, associate professor of the history faculty of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosova Arina Lazareva.
The very first world
"Lenta.ru": Some historians who study the 18th century consider the Seven Years' War to be the first real world conflict. Can we say the same about the Thirty Years' War of the 17th century?
Arina Lazareva: The epithet "world" for the Seven Years War is associated with the fact that it took place on several continents - as you know, it was fought not only in the European, but also in the American theater of operations. But it seems to me that the Thirty Years' War can rather be considered the "First World War".
Why?
The myth of the Thirty Years' War as the "First World War" is associated with the involvement of almost all European states in it. But in early modern times, the world was Eurocentric, and the concept of "peace" encompassed primarily the states of Europe. During the Thirty Years War, they split into two opposing blocs - the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs and the opposing coalition. Almost every European country had to take one side or the other in this general conflict of the first half of the 17th century.
Why was the Thirty Years' War such a colossal shock for Europe that its consequences are still felt today?
Promotional video:
As for the colossal shock and trauma caused by the Thirty Years' War to Germany or even the whole of Europe, here we are partly dealing with the myth-making of German historians of the 19th century. Trying to explain the absence of a German national state, they began to appeal to the "catastrophe" of the Thirty Years' War, which, in their view, destroyed the natural development of German lands and caused an irreparable "trauma" that the Germans began to overcome only in the 19th century. Then this myth was taken up by German historiography of the 20th century and especially by Nazi propaganda, which was very profitable to exploit it.
Painting by Karl Svoboda Defenestration.
If we talk about the consequences of the war, which are still felt, then the Thirty Years War should rather be viewed in a positive way. Its most important legacy, preserved to this day, is the structural changes in international relations, which have acquired a systemic character. After all, it was after the Thirty Years War that the first system of international relations, the Westphalian system, appeared in Europe, which became a kind of prototype for European cooperation and the foundation of the modern world order.
Germany became the main theater of operations of the Thirty Years War?
Yes, already contemporaries began to call the Thirty Years' War "German", or "the war of the Germans", because the main hostilities took place in the German principalities. The northeastern lands, central Germany, west and south - all these areas have been in constant military chaos for 30 years.
The British passing through them spoke very interestingly about the state of the German principalities in the mid-30s of the 17th century. They wrote: “The earth is absolutely deserted. We saw abandoned and devastated villages that were allegedly attacked 18 times over the course of two years. There was not a single person here or in the whole district. Statistical studies of the German historian Gunter Franz show that some areas (for example, Hesse and Bavaria) have lost up to half of the population.
Apocalypse of the Germanic nation
That is why in Germany the Thirty Years War is often called "the apocalypse of German history"?
It was the most devastating war to date in European history. The perception of war as an apocalypse was completed by a plague epidemic that began in the 1630s, and a severe famine, during which, according to contemporaries, there were even cases of cannibalism. All this is very colorfully captured in journalism - there are absolutely terrible stories how in Bavaria, during a famine, meat was cut from the corpses of people. For the imagination of the people of the 17th century, war, plague and famine were the embodiment of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. Many writers during the Thirty Years War actively cited The Revelation of John the Theologian, since its language was quite suitable for describing the then state of Central Europe.
The Thirty Years' War was considered German also because it decided the internal affairs of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. The conflict between the emperor and Frederick Palatinate was not only a religious conflict - it was a struggle for power, where the issue of the place of the emperor, his prerogatives and relations with the ranks of the empire was decided. It was about the so-called "imperial constitution", that is, the internal order of the empire.
Painting by Sebastian Vranks Marauding Soldiers.
It is not surprising that the Thirty Years' War was a real shock for contemporaries, both ideologically and politically.
Was this the first all-out war in its modern sense?
It seems to me that the Thirty Years' War can be called total, because it affected all state and public institutions of that time. No one was left indifferent at all. This is precisely due to the reasons for the war, which should also be considered quite broadly.
How exactly?
Traditionally, Russian historiography interpreted the Thirty Years War as a religious war. And at first glance it seems that the main reason for the war was the question of establishing confessional parity in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation between Catholics and Protestants. But if we are talking about a religious settlement in the empire, then how then to explain the general European character of the war? And this involvement of practically all European states in military confrontation provides the key to a broader understanding of the causes of the war.
These reasons are associated with the central theme of the early modern era - the establishment of the so-called "modern" states, that is, states of the modern type. Let us not forget that in the 17th century the states of Europe were still on the way to the idea of sovereignty and its practical implementation. Therefore, the Thirty Years War was not a conflict of equal-sized states (as it became later), but rather was a confrontation between various hierarchies, orders, organizations that were at the crossroads from the Middle Ages to the New Time.
And from the multitude of these confrontations, a new world order was born, the states of the New Time were born. Therefore, in today's historiography, the point of view that the Thirty Years' War is a state-forming war has more or less clearly established itself. That is, it was a war centered on the emergence of a new type of state.
Magdeburg lawlessness
That is, figuratively speaking, the whole modern system of international relations was born in the throes of the Thirty Years' War?
Yes. The most important prerequisite for the Thirty Years' War was the "general crisis" of the 17th century. In fact, this phenomenon was rooted in the previous century. This crisis manifested itself in all spheres - from economic to spiritual - and became the product of many processes that began in the 16th century. The Church Reformation undermined or significantly changed the spiritual foundations of society, and towards the end of the century a cold snap began - the so-called Little Ice Age. Then to this was added the European dynastic crisis caused by the inability of the then political institutions and elites to withstand the challenges of the time.
Was the Russian "rebellious" 17th century, which began with the Troubles, continued with the Great Schism and ended with the reforms of Peter I, was it also part of this "general crisis" of Europe?
Certainly. Russia has always been a part of the European world, albeit a very peculiar one.
What was the reason for the general bitterness, sometimes reaching savage, and massive violence against the civilian population? How reliable are the numerous testimonies of the horrors and atrocities of that war?
If we talk about the horrors of war, then I don't think there is an exaggeration here. Wars have always been waged extremely fiercely, ideas about the value of human life as such were very vague. We have a huge amount of terrible testimonies describing torture, robbery and other abominations of the Thirty Years War. It is interesting that contemporaries even personified the war itself.
Engraving by Jacques Callot The Horrors of War. The Hanged Men.
They portrayed her as a terrible monster with a wolf's mouth, a lion's body, horse legs, a rat's tail (there were different options). But, as contemporaries wrote, "this monster has human hands." Even in the writings of those contemporaries who did not set out to directly report the horrors of war, there are very colorful and truly monstrous pictures of military reality. Take, for example, the classic work of that era - the novel by Hans Jakob Grimmelshausen "Simplicissimus".
The story of the massacre in Magdeburg, perpetrated after its capture in 1631, is widely known. Was the terror organized by the victors against the inhabitants of the city unprecedented by the standards of that time?
No, the atrocities during the capture of Magdeburg were not much different from the violence against the local population during the capture of Munich by the troops of the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf. It is simply that the sad fate of the inhabitants of Magdeburg was more widely publicized, especially in Protestant countries.
Fire, plague and death, and the heart grows cold in the body
What was the scale of the humanitarian disaster? They say between four and ten million people died, about a third of Germany's territory was abandoned
The territories of Germany, located along the line from the southwest to the northeast, suffered the most. However, there were also areas not affected by the war. For example, northern German cities - in particular, Hamburg - on the contrary, only got rich from military supplies.
It is difficult to say with certainty how many people actually died during the Thirty Years War. There is only one statistical work about this by the mentioned Gunther Franz, written in the 30s of the twentieth century.
Under Hitler?
Yes, that's why some of his data are very biased. Franz wanted to show how much the Germans suffered from the aggression of their neighbors. And in this work, he really cites figures about 50 percent of the dead population of Germany.
Painting by Eduard Steinbrück Magdeburg girls.
But here the following should be remembered: people died not so much in the course of hostilities as from epidemics, hunger and other hardships caused by the Thirty Years War. All this fell on the German lands after the armies, like the three biblical horsemen of the Apocalypse. The classic of German literature of the 17th century, a contemporary of the Thirty Years War, poet Andreas Griffius wrote: “Fire, plague and death, and the heart grows cold in the body. Oh, mournful land, where blood flows in streams …"
The modern German political scientist Herfried Münkler considers the emergence of German militarism to be an important result of the Thirty Years' War. As far as he can understand it, the desire of the Germans to prevent a repetition of its horrors on their land in the long run led to an increase in their aggressiveness. The result was the Seven Years' War, sparked by the ambitions of Prussia, and both world wars of the 20th century, unleashed by Germany. How do you like this approach?
From the height of today, the Thirty Years War can be blamed, of course, for anything. The vitality of the 19th century myth is sometimes simply amazing. It was rather not militarism, more associated with the rise of Prussia in the 18th century, but German nationalism. During the Thirty Years War, German national sentiment sharpened as never before. In the minds of the Germans of that time, the whole world around was filled with enemies. Moreover, this was manifested not on a confessional basis (Catholics or Protestants), but on the basis of nationality: the enemies of the Spaniards, the enemies of the Swedes and, of course, the enemies of the French.
During the Thirty Years War, some stereotyped statements and opinions appeared, which later turned into stereotypes. Here, for example, about the enemies of the Spaniards: "real insidious killers who cunning with the help of their brutal intrigues and intrigues." This penchant for intrigue, attributed to the Spaniards, you see, is still in our minds: if there are "secrets", then surely the "Madrid court". But the most hated enemies were the French. As the German writers of that time wrote, with the arrival of the French, "from all the open gates, vice, debauchery and debauchery poured into us."
In a ring of enemies
The concept of the German "special path" (the notorious Deutscher Sonderweg), borrowed in the 19th century by Russian Slavophiles, was also the result of a rethinking of the experience of the Thirty Years' War?
Yes, it all comes from there. At the same time, a myth appeared about the chosenness of the German people and the idea that the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation is the last of the four biblical kingdoms, after the fall of which the Kingdom of God will come. Of course, all these images have their own specific historical explanations, but now we are not talking about that. It is important that the national component has risen to a new level over the years of the Thirty Years War. Political infirmity after the end of the war began to be more and more actively concealed by claims to "past greatness", the possession of "special moral values" and similar attributes.
Is it true that it was precisely as a result of the Thirty Years War in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation that Brandenburg, the core of the future Prussia, became stronger?
I wouldn't say that. Brandenburg was strengthened by the far-sighted policy of the great Elector Friedrich Wilhelm I, who pursued a very competent policy, including religious tolerance. The rise of the Prussian kingdom was more promoted by Frederick the Great, who consolidated the successes of his ancestors, but this happened already in the second half of the 18th century.
Why did the Thirty Years' War last so long?
To understand the duration of the war, one must understand its European character. For example, one should not think that France's entry into the Thirty Years' War is based solely on the Franco-German confrontation. After all, officially Louis XIII began a war not with the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but with Spain. And this happened after the capture of the Elector of Trier by Spanish troops, who was officially under French protection since 1632. That is, for France, the war against the emperor was only a side theater of operations in the war against Spain. France had no specific strategic goals in relation to the Habsburgs; it was looking for a long-term security program.
France tried to resist the hegemony of the Habsburgs, whose possessions it was surrounded on almost all sides?
Yes, this was precisely the strategy of Cardinal Richelieu, who led the foreign policy of France.
Painting by Sebastian Vranks Soldiers rob a farm during the Thirty Years' War.
But the duration of the war was largely due to the involvement of new European actors under various pretexts. Constant contradictions regularly arose and intensified between European states, while the balance of political forces in Europe was never unambiguous. For example, the same Richelieu, even during the Swedish invasion of the German principalities, seeing the strengthening of Sweden, pondered the conclusion of an alliance with the Habsburgs against Stockholm. But this is a completely unique fact!
Why?
Because the Franco-Habsburg antagonism has been the main conflict in Europe since the end of the 15th century. But Richelieu was prompted to such thoughts by the fact that the strengthening of Sweden was completely unprofitable for France. However, due to the death of Gustav II Adolf at the Battle of Lutzen in 1632, further strengthening of the forces opposing the emperor was again considered an urgent need. Therefore, France in 1633 entered into the Heilbron alliance with the Protestant estates of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.
Russian bread for Swedish victories
Who, then, can be considered the victor in the Thirty Years War?
This is a difficult question…
France?
To some extent, its credibility in the international arena has noticeably strengthened, especially compared to Spain. But the Fronde still continued there, greatly weakening the country from the inside, and France reached the peak of its power only in the mature years of Louis XIV.
Sweden?
If we evaluate the winner in terms of international authority and claims to hegemony, then for Sweden the war turned out to be extremely successful. After that, the great-power period of Swedish history reached its climax, and the Baltic Sea, right up to the Northern War with Russia, actually turned into a "Swedish Lake".
But some historians - for example, Heinz Duhkhard - believe that Europe won, because the Thirty Years' War strengthened the European center. After all, none of the participants in the war wanted the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation - everyone needed it as a deterrent. In addition, after the war, new ideas about international relations appeared in Europe, and voices that stood up for a common system of European security became more and more audible.
And what happened to the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation? It turns out that it was she who became the loser?
It cannot be said unequivocally that the Thirty Years War put an end to its development and viability. On the contrary, the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation was necessary for Europe as an important political organism. The fact that after the Thirty Years War its potential was clearly preserved is proved by the policy of Emperor Leopold I at the end of the 17th century.
The war began in 1618, when the 15-year-old Troubles ended in Russia. Did the Moscow state take any part in the events of the Thirty Years War?
There are many scientific papers devoted to this problem. The book by the historian Boris Porshnev, who examines the foreign policy of Mikhail Romanov in the context of European international relations during the Thirty Years War, has become a classic. Porshnev believed that the Smolensk War of 1632-1634 was the Russian theater of operations of the Thirty Years War. It seems to me that this statement has its own logic.
Indeed, having split into two warring blocs, European states were simply forced to take one side or the other. For Russia, the confrontation with Poland turned into an indirect struggle with the Habsburgs, since the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation was fully supported by the Polish kings - first Sigismund III, and then his son Vladislav IV.
Moreover, not long before that they both "checked in" with us during the Troubles
Yes, like many of their subjects. It was on this basis that Moscow actually helped Sweden. The supply of cheap Russian bread ensured the successful march of Gustav Adolf across the German lands. At the same time, Russia, despite the requests of Emperor Ferdinand II, categorically refused to sell bread to the Holy Roman Empire.
However, I would not speak unequivocally about Russia's participation in the Thirty Years War. Yet our country, devastated by the Troubles, was then on the periphery of European politics. Although both Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich, judging by the reports of the ambassadors and the first Russian handwritten newspaper Vesti-Kuranty, followed the European events very closely. After the end of the Thirty Years War, the documents of the Peace of Westphalia were very quickly translated for Alexei Mikhailovich. By the way, the Russian tsar was also mentioned in them.
Westphalian foundation of the modern world
Now some researchers, and not only the aforementioned Herfried Münkler, compare the Thirty Years War with the current protracted conflicts in Africa or in the Middle East. They find a lot in common between them: a combination of religious intolerance and the struggle for power, ruthless terror against the civilian population, permanent enmity between everyone and everyone. Do you think such analogies are appropriate?
Yes, now in the West, especially in Germany, these comparisons are very popular. Not so long ago, Angela Merkel spoke "about the lessons of the Thirty Years' War" in the context of the Middle East conflicts. Even now, they often talk about the erosion of the Westphalian system. But I would not like to delve into contemporary international political science.
If you really want to find analogies in history, you can always do this. The world is still changing: the reasons, perhaps, remain similar, but the methods of resolving issues today are much more complicated and, of course, tougher. If desired, the conflicts in the Middle East can be compared with the long-term wars of the European states (primarily of the Holy Roman Empire) with Ottoman Turkey, which were of a civilizational nature.
Yet why is the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War, considered to be the basis of the European political system and the entire modern world order?
The Peace of Westphalia was the first peace treaty to regulate the overall balance of power in Europe. Even at the time of the signing of the peace, the Italian diplomat Cantorini called the Peace of Westphalia "an epoch-making event for the world." And he was right: the uniqueness of the Peace of Westphalia lies in its universality and inclusiveness. The Munster Treaty contains in the penultimate paragraph an invitation to all European sovereigns to join the signing of the peace, based on the proposals of one of the two parties making peace.
Painting by Gerard Terborch The signing of the Münster Treaty on May 15, 1648.
In the minds of contemporaries and descendants, the world was considered Christian, universal and eternal - “pax sit christiana, universalis, perpetua”. And this was not just a speech formula, but an attempt to give it a moral foundation. On the basis of this thesis, for example, a general amnesty was held, an all-forgiveness was announced, thanks to which it was possible to create a basis for Christian interaction between states in the future.
The installations contained in the Westphalian world represented a kind of security partnership for the entire European society, a kind of ersatz of the European security system. Its principles - mutual recognition by states of national state sovereignty, their equality and the principle of inviolability of borders - have become the foundation of the current global world order.
What lessons can the modern world learn from the longest and bloodiest European conflict of the 17th century?
It is probably this partnership for the sake of safety that we all need to learn today. Seek mutual compromises to avoid a war that risks becoming a global catastrophe for the whole world. Our ancestors in the 17th century were able to achieve this. Figuratively speaking, the general bitterness and horror, the filth and bloody chaos of the Thirty Years' War dragged Europe to the very bottom. But she still found the strength to push off from him, be born again and reach a new level of development.
Interviewed by Andrey Mozzhukhin