30 years of wars

[Ninja_Sher]

Say yes or no.

If the 30 years war would not happen then no other wars  in Europe would happen and there would atleast 4 billions Christians and ulitimately all other wars would stop and world would be safer place to live.

[Ninja_Sher]

OK the 30 years of war was held between two factions of Christianity the Protestants and Catholics.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

[Acriku]

If there were 4 billion of any religion, there'd be less wars, simply because a super majority of the people agree with each other!

[GUNWOUNDS]

haha wait here is an even better way to say it.  ;D

Hello Captain Obvious !

[Caid Ivik]

30-year war was started by a rebellion of czech and hungarian aristocracy against Habsburgs, which were nearly dominating whole Europe. It was first stronger internal conflict of their empire since Suleyman II. and other countries simply felt it's needed to use this opportunity. Church was watched as a primary tool of Habsburgs, so that's why it's usually showed as a war of religions.

[Dude_Doc]

I'd like to think that every moment in our history is important. That is, it must happen sooner or later. We must have an example of why we can't slaughter people - which Hitler gave us. Imagine how it would be if the Holocaust never happened, and would instead happen in the 2030's? Would that ever be revealed? That's why I think, no matter how harsh it may seem, that every moment in history serves as an example of what's right and what's wrong.

[bryorama]

Everything could have happened differently, it just matters the place and time of certain events.

Example: Thinking hypethetically, say Abraham Lincoln didn't go to the play he got assasinated at, because he was sick or something. That could have possibly been causing a whole different outcome on the slavery/civil war issue and such. It could still be affecting U.S. citizens today. Just because it wouldn't have happened, doesn't mean its due to happen later to a different president or even to him.

About the 30 years of war

Cause:The fundamental cause was the internal decay of the empire from 1555, as evidenced by the weakness of the imperial power, by the gross lack of patriotism manifested by the estates of the empire, and by the paralysis of the imperial authority and its agencies among the Protestant estates of Southwestern Germany, which had been in a state of discontent since 1555. Consequently the whole of Germany was in a continual state of unrest. The decay of the empire encouraged the other nations of Western Europe to infringe upon its territory. Spain and the Netherlands made use of the period of the twelve-years truce to secure a footing in the neighbouring district of the Lower Rhine so as to increase their strategic base. For nearly a hundred years France had made treaties with many of the estates hostile to the emperor. Henry IV of France was murdered in 1610 at the very moment he was about to interfere in the war over the J

[Caid Ivik]

If 30-year war didn't occur, there would be no international law. Peace of Westfalen was (and still is) one of the main pillars of it. Countries, even those, who participated on this war minimally, followed it until today. Only now, with rather monopolar world, it seems to be fading. National changes, like for Czechs, Germans, Hungarians or French would be also extremely significant without this battle with Habsburgs.

[Wolf]

What events precipated the war? Is it not likely that, even if the 30 Years War specifically did not occur, something else would have that would have created the same change? I believe that historical events occur more by inertia than by anthing else. The UN came out of World War II, World War II came out of Hitler, Hitler came out of World War I, World War I came out of Imperialism, etc.

[Caid Ivik]

If imperialism is a will to conquer, I can say that nearly every war was caused by it. Others were rebellions. Like the czech war, which started the 30-year one.

[Anathema]

The 12 years truce Sentinel spoke of was during the 80 years war between Spain and the Netherlands. The 30 year war was at the same time, but the Netherlands weren't involved in that, so it's necessary to distinguish the two conflicts.

The 80 years war was ended at the peace of Westfalen (or peace of Munster and Osnabruck) along with the 30 years war by a series of treaties, and the Netherlands and Swiss were officially recognised as independant nations, so this peace is considreed to be the birth of international law.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, as you are Dutch you know it much more accurately. In fact, after fall of Friedrich von Pfalz in (I think) 1627, the 30-year war in Germany was paused, until the swedish attack on the side of protestant union. 30-year war was more like a serie of conflicts, bound by reasons, as well as persons, which led their armies.

[bryorama]

Caid is right.

[Ninja_Sher]

What events precipated the war? Is it not likely that, even if the 30 Years War specifically did not occur, something else would have that would have created the same change? I believe that historical events occur more by inertia than by anthing else. The UN came out of World War II, World War II came out of Hitler, Hitler came out of World War I, World War I came out of Imperialism, etc.

Off topic : Ironically one of the reasons that made Deutsch felt discriminated about treaty of WW1 was the hand over of the oil reach areas in Baghdad which was part of their ally Ottoman Empire ( They shared the areas as per treaty ) to the Allied nations. Hitler siphoned support from his people by using this example.

Back to topic : But there was already international laws before the 30 years war even started, so what it changed is that the European nations started to fight each other and Europe became a hostile place.

[Caid Ivik]

There were some bilateral agreements, but about international law we can't speak before Westfalen.

[Ninja_Sher]

It is beleived that the Roman Empire made such agreements with all its counterparts so it was kind of international treaty. The Roman alliance ( the allies of Rome and Rome itself ) made up an organization such that of UN.

[Caid Ivik]

Holy Roman Empire, medieval Germany. Rome wasn't even a part of it. They had mutual emperor, but in 15th century his authority strongly decayed.

[Ninja_Sher]

I meant the Roman Empire not the Baraborosa Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire had to parts : One had Constantinopole as its capital and other had Rome as it's capital ( That is after the Birth of Christ ).

The Roman Empire before birth of Christ had Rome as its capital so do not get confused over it.

[Caid Ivik]

I am rather confused with your view, but let's take it clear. With Roman Empire I mean latin empire, which came from Rome in antic times. This one was parted in 395 AD to Rome and Byzantium. Rome fell in 475, Byzantine Empire started own sole history. In 800 AD pope declared Karl the Great, king of Francons, as a new emperor of Holy Roman Empire after he defeated Longobards, which threatened Rome.

After his death was Franconian Empire parted and crown of emperor belonged to his eldest son Lothar. After his death, Ludwig Deutscher, king of eastern Franconia, took it for himself. His dynasty (Karolinger) ruled in eastern part until early 10th century, when it died out (with imperial title) and was first replaced by Saxons (Heinrich I.) and later Ottons. In western part, future France, Karolingers ruled until it was disintegrated and confederatively reunited under rule of House Kapet. In late 10th century Otto III. pushed pope for imperial crown, so he was declared an emperor of new Germany - called Holy Roman Empire of german nation. This title directly came to Hohenstauffs and after they died out it was elected by kurfursts (most powerful lords of Holy Roman Empire: czech king, king of Pfalz etc). This state was until 16th century, when Ferdinand Habsburg took it by force of his lanzknechts. This long conflict between Habsburgs and kurfursts led later to 30-year war.

[Anathema]

Lothar had three sons actually, so there was a middle empire as well. It contained both Aken and Rome so that son (I think he was Lothar II but I'm not sure) got the imperial title. The middle empire was divided later on though and was later conquered by the eastern empire.

Also it's incorrect to say that the antique Roman empire had 2 parts after 395. The two emperors, seated in either capitol, ruled the whole empire together.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I don't know it exactly. Main is that with Ludwig's sons the title lost its meaning and was recovered just with Otto III..

[Anathema]

Actually I think that Otto III was the first who called himself Holy Roman emperor. Charlemagne was crowned just as emperor.

[Caid Ivik]

I wasn't there, but when there is something referred to Karl the Great, it's like what I said, usually. Fact is he wasn't an emperor in sense of pre-475 times as well as not quite a german emperor as those post-Otto III. ones.