Donnadogsoth Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 The Thirty Years War (1618-48) was a nasty and weakening affair for Europe. It couldn't have helped Europe in its ongoing contest with the Ottoman Empire. Thirty-five years after the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia based on the principle of "advantage of the other" which allowed that beleaguered Europe to rebuild and replenish itself, the Ottoman Empire besieged Vienna. They were repulsed by the Christian defenders, but I ask, would that repulsion have occurred had the peace of Westphalia not been secured? If Europe had remained convulsed with war for many more years, never having a chance to rally itself to the degree of unity needed to fight off the Turks, would it have fallen? Did the Treaty of Westphalia save Christendom?
ofd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 If Michelangelo had been a Siamese Twin could he have painted the Sistine chapel in half the time? 1
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: The Thirty Years War (1618-48) was a nasty and weakening affair for Europe. It couldn't have helped Europe in its ongoing contest with the Ottoman Empire. Thirty-five years after the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia based on the principle of "advantage of the other" which allowed that beleaguered Europe to rebuild and replenish itself, the Ottoman Empire besieged Vienna. They were repulsed by the Christian defenders, but I ask, would that repulsion have occurred had the peace of Westphalia not been secured? If Europe had remained convulsed with war for many more years, never having a chance to rally itself to the degree of unity needed to fight off the Turks, would it have fallen? Did the Treaty of Westphalia save Christendom? A very great topic I haven't tackled in a long while, or at least the era. Quite simply, this is akin to asking "If the Western Powers hadn't formed NATO after WWII, would the Soviet Union have been able to curb-stomp the fragmented Western Europeans into oblivion?" since the Thirty Years War was arguably the WWII in terms of human destruction and fear of the era, but perhaps greater since it lasted thirty years with massive reversals and dramatic turnarounds being the norm, especially between the Holy Roman Empire and the Scandinavians. I think the answer is...a bit nuanced. I'm sure if the Austrian-led Empire hadn't regained the faith of its vassals, and a "break" from the terrible war, but rather kept the hostilities going between North and South, and East and West, then the Ottomans probably would have conquered the Christians in Eastern and Central Europe. The most decisive factor in the Empire's victory against the Sultanate was the rescue of the Capital by the Poles, who were basically the badass over-powered controller-breaking cheat-code-enablers of the time. Their power, faith, and intelligence saved Vienna and sent back the Muslims who'd have otherwise plundered the Capital and used it as a platform to seize and threaten the rest of Europe. Not to mention the ethnic-French Prince Eugene of Savoy was definitely a decisively positive factor in leading the Empire to victory as Generalissimo. If the French had still been hostile to the Germans (well they were actually, in fact I think they were at war with the Germans at this time so never mind)...well, I know getting the North Germans secure and the Eastern Europeans (a.k.a. the badass Europeans that save the day when the rest need it apparently) was foundational to the Holy League's victory against the invaders. It can be said if the Empire stood alone and fragmented, without its Christian allies and with continued death, it would have failed to save Europe.
Donnadogsoth Posted June 20, 2017 Author Posted June 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: A very great topic I haven't tackled in a long while, or at least the era. Quite simply, this is akin to asking "If the Western Powers hadn't formed NATO after WWII, would the Soviet Union have been able to curb-stomp the fragmented Western Europeans into oblivion?" since the Thirty Years War was arguably the WWII in terms of human destruction and fear of the era, but perhaps greater since it lasted thirty years with massive reversals and dramatic turnarounds being the norm, especially between the Holy Roman Empire and the Scandinavians. I think the answer is...a bit nuanced. I'm sure if the Austrian-led Empire hadn't regained the faith of its vassals, and a "break" from the terrible war, but rather kept the hostilities going between North and South, and East and West, then the Ottomans probably would have conquered the Christians in Eastern and Central Europe. The most decisive factor in the Empire's victory against the Sultanate was the rescue of the Capital by the Poles, who were basically the badass over-powered controller-breaking cheat-code-enablers of the time. Their power, faith, and intelligence saved Vienna and sent back the Muslims who'd have otherwise plundered the Capital and used it as a platform to seize and threaten the rest of Europe. Not to mention the ethnic-French Prince Eugene of Savoy was definitely a decisively positive factor in leading the Empire to victory as Generalissimo. If the French had still been hostile to the Germans (well they were actually, in fact I think they were at war with the Germans at this time so never mind)...well, I know getting the North Germans secure and the Eastern Europeans (a.k.a. the badass Europeans that save the day when the rest need it apparently) was foundational to the Holy League's victory against the invaders. It can be said if the Empire stood alone and fragmented, without its Christian allies and with continued death, it would have failed to save Europe. Excellent, just what I was looking for. Thank you, Siegfried.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said: Excellent, just what I was looking for. Thank you, Siegfried. You're welcome.
luxfelix Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 Slightly off-topic: I wonder if history is repeating itself, both in the way that Turkey once again threatens Europe and in the historical alliance between France and the Ottomans (and a would-be alliance between Elizabeth I and Morocco?).
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, luxfelix said: Slightly off-topic: I wonder if history is repeating itself, both in the way that Turkey once again threatens Europe and in the historical alliance between France and the Ottomans (and a would-be alliance between Elizabeth I and Morocco?). I think a better analogy for the Sun King would be Chancellor Merkel, and the Holy Roman Empire (and friends) would today be Russia, Poland, and Hungary. Greece is interesting because if they go full-fash they might be the cork that blocks out one avenue of attack, however the Greeks will most likely be thrown under the buss in this scenario.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 9 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: Excellent, just what I was looking for. Thank you, Siegfried. Actually, I'm curious; why were you looking for this? Food for thought? For personal discussion? Academic/job related?
Donnadogsoth Posted June 22, 2017 Author Posted June 22, 2017 18 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: Actually, I'm curious; why were you looking for this? Food for thought? For personal discussion? Academic/job related? Personal thoughts that might become useful some day.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/21/2017 at 8:26 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Personal thoughts that might become useful some day. How? Do you plan on becoming a crusader or united-Christian-front activist? Or...?
Donnadogsoth Posted June 23, 2017 Author Posted June 23, 2017 9 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: How? Do you plan on becoming a crusader or united-Christian-front activist? Or...? Putting it into an essay in defense of the West. Literary crusading?
Recommended Posts