Page 219 - Stati inu obstati, revija za vprašanja protestantizma, letnik XV (2019), številka 29, ISSN 2590-9754
P. 219
povzetki, synopses, ZUSAMMENFASSUNGEN
in the Palatinate in the west of the Empire were virtually condemned to be bound to the
emperor on account of the expansion of Burgundy. The Luxembourg rulers, who con-
trolled the provinces of the Bohemian Crown and therefore the position of the Bohemi-
an prince elector as well, also possessed extensive estates in the west of the Empire. They
were a great support and guarantee of stability for all the prince electors in this region.
Since the male line died out, the Luxembourg rulers could not exploit the advantag-
es which the position of Bohemian king had given them in electing rulers of the Holy
Roman Empire. The same can be said of their direct descendants – on account of their
short reigns (Albrecht II, Ladislaus the Posthumous), obstacles of a religious nature
(George of Poděbrady) or engagement with the defence of Hungary against the Turks
(Vladislaus II and Louis II). The Hapsburgs were fully aware of the outstanding signifi-
cance of the Bohemian Crown’s provinces within the structure of the Holy Roman Em-
pire after the issuing of the Golden Bull of Charles IV. At the same time of all the votes
in the electoral college they themselves could come only to the Bohemian vote. Thus the
removal of Ferdinand II from the Bohemian throne at the time when he aimed at elec-
tion as Roman Emperor could have completely changed the balance in the Holy Roman
Empire. His replacement with Frederick V of the Palatinate, which was connected with
special conditions in the Bohemian Crown’s provinces, where a fragile balance had been
reached among the followers of different religious confessions, gave the Protestants a
majority in the electoral college.
The Thirty Years’ War was never unified; in different periods it affected different re-
gions, and it also embraced a number of concurrent conflicts (Spanish-Dutch, Span-
ish-French in various battlefields from Italy to the Pyrenees), which were not all con-
cluded by the Peace of Westphalia.
The Thirty Years’ War ends the period of classic feudal age conflicts and marks the
beginning of modern warfare. In particular its totality (the destruction of the economy
in individual provinces) and the absolute nature of the conflict, carried out at all levels
(from armed to propaganda war), point the way to the future of warfare. Indeed it was
precisely the absolute and total nature of the war that led to its collapse into a series of
parallel armed conflicts, since in dire extremity individual rulers and towns sought a
solution primarily for themselves. This led to a number of unusual connections over re-
ligious dividing lines in different periods of the war.
The Thirty Years’ War was a great test of the mosaic order which set Europe apart
from other regions of the world inclined towards imperial monumentalism. It showed
that also in the modern age a composite order was at least the least bad – if not the best
– solution for the old continent. The wars of the two kings Louis XIV and Louis XV, of
Napoleon I and the world wars of the 20th century did not change this.
Without a doubt religion was the emblem of the Thirty Years’ War. But after warring
became a means of survival and sometimes even of getting rich, notions of its religious
justification and nature were increasingly lost.
Religion again became the central guideline of people when the Peace of Westphalia
was concluded in the name of the Holy Trinity. Typically the second half of the 17th cen-
217
in the Palatinate in the west of the Empire were virtually condemned to be bound to the
emperor on account of the expansion of Burgundy. The Luxembourg rulers, who con-
trolled the provinces of the Bohemian Crown and therefore the position of the Bohemi-
an prince elector as well, also possessed extensive estates in the west of the Empire. They
were a great support and guarantee of stability for all the prince electors in this region.
Since the male line died out, the Luxembourg rulers could not exploit the advantag-
es which the position of Bohemian king had given them in electing rulers of the Holy
Roman Empire. The same can be said of their direct descendants – on account of their
short reigns (Albrecht II, Ladislaus the Posthumous), obstacles of a religious nature
(George of Poděbrady) or engagement with the defence of Hungary against the Turks
(Vladislaus II and Louis II). The Hapsburgs were fully aware of the outstanding signifi-
cance of the Bohemian Crown’s provinces within the structure of the Holy Roman Em-
pire after the issuing of the Golden Bull of Charles IV. At the same time of all the votes
in the electoral college they themselves could come only to the Bohemian vote. Thus the
removal of Ferdinand II from the Bohemian throne at the time when he aimed at elec-
tion as Roman Emperor could have completely changed the balance in the Holy Roman
Empire. His replacement with Frederick V of the Palatinate, which was connected with
special conditions in the Bohemian Crown’s provinces, where a fragile balance had been
reached among the followers of different religious confessions, gave the Protestants a
majority in the electoral college.
The Thirty Years’ War was never unified; in different periods it affected different re-
gions, and it also embraced a number of concurrent conflicts (Spanish-Dutch, Span-
ish-French in various battlefields from Italy to the Pyrenees), which were not all con-
cluded by the Peace of Westphalia.
The Thirty Years’ War ends the period of classic feudal age conflicts and marks the
beginning of modern warfare. In particular its totality (the destruction of the economy
in individual provinces) and the absolute nature of the conflict, carried out at all levels
(from armed to propaganda war), point the way to the future of warfare. Indeed it was
precisely the absolute and total nature of the war that led to its collapse into a series of
parallel armed conflicts, since in dire extremity individual rulers and towns sought a
solution primarily for themselves. This led to a number of unusual connections over re-
ligious dividing lines in different periods of the war.
The Thirty Years’ War was a great test of the mosaic order which set Europe apart
from other regions of the world inclined towards imperial monumentalism. It showed
that also in the modern age a composite order was at least the least bad – if not the best
– solution for the old continent. The wars of the two kings Louis XIV and Louis XV, of
Napoleon I and the world wars of the 20th century did not change this.
Without a doubt religion was the emblem of the Thirty Years’ War. But after warring
became a means of survival and sometimes even of getting rich, notions of its religious
justification and nature were increasingly lost.
Religion again became the central guideline of people when the Peace of Westphalia
was concluded in the name of the Holy Trinity. Typically the second half of the 17th cen-
217
