Customer Reviews

The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When I saw this book for sale I was afraid that it would be another REALLY long, dry history book written by somebody who doesn't know how to cut things out. Fortunately I was wrong. This book is pretty much the definitive history of the Thirty Years War. At 851 pages of text it is certainly a long book, but given the complexity of the source material I don't see how it could be otherwise. It has to make up for years with little printed research (At least in English) as well as include all the recent papers printed in other languages. As he points out in the introduction, any comprehensive book on the Thirty Years War requires knowledge of at least 14 different languages. For some reason the English speaking countries don't have much interest in the Thirty Years War. There is a very short list of books that cover it.

A lot has changed since the greatest previous book on the war came out in 1938. There has been a copious amount of new research that just wasn't available then. Also, having been written after World War I the perspective is rather different. In some ways that helped of course, since both wars were so tragically pointless. This book is rather different from that one. While Wedgwood's book relied almost entirely on the chroniclers of the time, this book includes a better look at the war's causes. In fact, the war itself doesn't start until page 269. Wedgwood's book kind of reminded me of Gibbons, at least in the way she arranges her information quite clearly to add force to her thesis. Basically her thesis is that the war was a stupid waste that was caused by naivety and greed for power. Even though I think her thesis works better that Gibbons', it still left a lot out that wasn't essential to her main point. In her defense, her book was only about half the size of this one. This book includes everything. I'm sure that even at this length it left many things but it feels complete. While most other books on this period are focused on the more exciting events, this book is evenly spread through time. The main focus of Thirty Years War books tends to be on the first part with the detail ending after the death of Gustavus Adolphus. Wedgwood is pretty blunt about this, saying that most of the rest of the war was just further mindless violence with few major battles. Obviously ignoring the second half of the war leads to a mistaken impression of the entire conflict.

I really appreciate the layout of this book. The chapters are long but they are divided into subsections every few pages which makes it easier to find a point to put it down. That's something that I wish more books would do. The divisions aren't forced either, so if you're on a boring topic a new one will come along shortly. The battles have pretty clear maps which show the layout of the opposing armies. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and in this case they're right. Even though the battle descriptions are fairly brief, I feel that I understand them better than I did reading Wedgwood's book. There are also full-color pictures of all the major players in the war and several of the more important events. If you have any interest in this war I would strongly recommend this book. It might be a difficult read because of it's length, but it's worth the trouble.

I purchased this book on September 15th, and it has taken me this long to digest the contents (while reading other books.) Make no mistake, the Thirty Years War was extremely complex, and reading about it will be necessarily slow to allow the reader to fully comprehend the subject. This work is extraordinary in that it starts well before 1618 to address the causes of the war, and ends well after 1648 with three chapters addressing the impact of the two treaties ending the war (Osnabrueck and Muenster, together called the Treaty of Westphalia,) the costs of the war, and the general population's experiences and adaptations.

This is only the third general book on the war I have read in English, the other two being Wedgwood, "The Thirty Years War" and Parker, "The Thirty Years War", although I have read a number of books in German on the subject including Schiller and Jessen. There are also books more limited in scope that I could recommend like "Wallenstein" by Golo Mann. But so far, this work seems to me to be the gold standard.

It is impossible today to depict the utter devastation visited on the German population during this war, and the author frankly doesn't try. The book is primarily concerned with the political and military maneuvering that allowed the war to break out and continue for so long. Even in Chapter 22, "The Human and Material Cost", the focus is on the macro level. The discussion of populations deaths in Germany have ranged from fifteen to eighty-three (5/6ths) percent, although the author, after much discussion, adopts twenty percent in one place and thirty in another. Certainly the populations of many towns were extirpated, and killings by soldiers of civilians and vice-versa was endemic outside of the formal battles. Regardless of the true percentage which most authorities agree was around 40%, the effect on the civilian population was unbelievable, and a country with a promising middle class was reduced to desolation and want. Only in the last chapter does the author touch upon the subject, and then only lightly. As late as 1980, Germans rated the Thirty Years War as the most devastating event in their country's history, World Wars I and II notwithstanding. Throughout the conflict foreign armies or armies of a competing religion passed through communities and regions looting, murdering, raping, and burning at every opportunity.

I found the author's attempt to downplay religion most interesting although it was impossible for me to agree with his analysis. Many writers have cast the war as Protestant versus Roman Catholic, and indeed, armies were generally made up almost exclusively of adherents of one religion or the other. Certainly religious issues were paramount when soldiers murdered civilians, and it must be remembered that this was an age in which people died over the number of sacrements or the reality of transubstantiation. As the author points out, princes (most notably a number of Protestant princes) converted from one religion to the other for political purposes (politicians are always venal and opportunistic), but the general population tended to fight for their religion to the last extremity. I don't mean to argue the point with the author, but this was essentially the only point where I felt he was in error.

The maps of the various battles are useful, but my volume lacked an overall map of the area of conflict. Actually, several are needed to reflect the situation at various times (consider a single map showing World War II.) Supposedly there was to be a map of Europe in 1618 in the end papers, but it was not present -- instead there was s chart of the Habsburg Family Tree. This deficiency of area maps seems to be common in works on the Thirty Years War, but perhaps the next edition will add them.

This book is split into three parts, "Beginnings," "Conflict" and "Aftermath." The "Beginnings" contains eight chapters of the evolution towards the war and spans 268 pages. I found this part to be the best, not the least since it is usually skated over in other works. The "Conflict" part is somewhat mind-numbing (480 pages with 12 chapters) and most recommended for those interested in the military campaigns of Ferdinand, Wallenstein, Tilly, Gustavus Adolphus and the lesser lights. This is where one can become bogged down with the constant campaigning, shifting alliances, and ever-changing conditions. The analysis in the third part, "Aftermath" (90 pages) must be read carefully to understand the impact of the war of subsequent history. All parts are valuable but may appeal to different readers.

This is a very scholarly work, and the notes (73 pages) are extremely valuable. There is no bibliography or list of references, and the reader must use the notes for guidance.

I highly recommend this work to everyone interested in early modern times or the seventeenth century in Europe. In addition, this is an awesome reference work for one to be able to refer back to some incident or issue in the Thirty Years War. This conflict did not become fully resolved until Bismarck's consolidation of Germany late in the 19th century, so its impact was far-reaching and important.

I may amend this review later, but after waiting forever to get a copy of this (publisher is backordered), I've discovered that Harvard University Press has cleverly excluded a key feature from the first edition, mainly a "theater level" map of Central Europe in the period covered. If you happen to know where Westphalia. the River Weser, and Julich are, no problem, but the rest of us would appreciate being able to sort out the complex political and military events being described in the book by looking at an included map.

This is definitely a publishing screw-up; the general map is mentioned in the List of Maps in the contents, but is not present in the book. The publisher has the map available on its website, but the file is monstrously large and will not print correctly on either of my two printers. I guess you could use an atlas or keep walking back and forth between your computer monitor and reading chair, but considering the not insubstantial cost of this book, I do not find this state of affairs satisfactory.

Moreover, even if we did have the theater level map mentioned, the absence of smaller operational scale maps is a pretty grave omission. The gold standard in epic narrative history, Foote's Civil War, has various scales of maps every few pages so the armchair general can see exactly what is at stake and what each side was trying to accomplish in a given area. Wilson gives us numerous battle maps but that's it. Some intermediate scale maps (along with the large scale map that was supposed to have been included) would have been very welcome.

I've emailed the publisher and will amend this review if they provide any sort of meaningful customer service to resolve the issue. I am not sure if all copies have been affected by this glitch, but at least one other reviewer mentions the problem, so caveat emptor!

Update: The publisher has gratefully agreed to forward me a free copy of the updated printing of the book which will feature the missing map. The publisher stated that the missing map was the fault of the original UK publisher who failed to provide the relevant proof file. This is excellent customer service and is much appreciated.

I am upgrading my star rating to 5 of 5, after finishing the book. Wilson is an excellent writer who focuses on many aspects surrounding the 30 Years War that the earlier standard history of the period (by C.V. Wedgwood written in 1938) glossed over or ignored, i.e. the Hapsburg war with the Ottomans that was a sort of training ground for military leaders on both sides, military tactics and weapons features, etc. The result is a fuller and, for a modern reader, more understandable picture of the context and narrative of an immensely complex chain of events.

Wilson infers that Wedgwood was harsher on the Hapsburgs than history warranted because of her context (with 30s style appeasement and rise of Hitler making fear of autocrats a trait of the period she was writing) but in truth I did not feel Wedgwood was all that anti-Hapsburg. I guess though that ultimately Wilson is to be credited for his unbiased and fair-minded coverage of most parties in the war, even the more controversial ones like Sweden and Spain ... and of course, the Hapsburgs!

Compared to Wedgwood's study, Wilson combines a more "modern" style of analysis and narrative interspersed. His coverage of military events is more expert, complete with many battle maps and quite detailed and lively discussion of the battles. Wilson translates all his quotes (assuming less of his readers than CVW did back in 1938!) and also covers more background in greater detail making his work (somewhat) friendlier to those unfamiliar with the 17th Century as compared to Wedgwood. I would still not call this an introductory text, but it is easier going in terms of authorial assumption of reader knowledge.

Wilson's writing lacks a bit of the grace of Wedgwood, but his narratives are well done and the book is not dull. My only complaint is that even with properly updated endmap version, the text could have used many more "theatre maps" like in Foote's "Civil War" series. It is sometimes very hard to figure out why General A was trying to take City B, and a few more intermediate scale campaign maps may have made the theater maneuvers a bit more clear.

All in all, if you must own only one book on the 30 Years War, I would say this is the way to go, assuming you don't mind the length. But I am happy to own both this book and Wedgwood, as the two are complimentary to a large extent.

Another reviewer in this thread has pointed out that a broad frame general history of The Thirty Years War - one of the most savage, brutal, and overlooked conflicts in Europe's bloody history - has not been attempted since 1938. While I was not aware that it had taken so very long, I am not surprised. Sadly, most people would not know what the conflict was or when, or are inclined to dismiss it as just another series of "Wars of Religion." I am pleased to say that this fine work rectifies those grave errors.

This large book is subdivided into three sections - origins, the war itself, and long term impact. This very easy to understand chronological division is made even simpler because the author, in a welcome flauting of many modern standards of historical writing, also makes liberal use of chapter subdivisions. This makes the book, even when discussing multiple strands of subject matter at once, both readable and user-friendly. That was very welcome. This was a frightfully convoluted chapter in an already complex period of European history, and Wilson and his editors do their level best to make it as easy to comprehend as possible without doing injustice to the subject matter by needless abridgement or "dumbing down" the source materials.

The sources are lengthly and meticulously detailed. This is one of those books where the endnotes are as interesting as the text itself, making the comprehensive whole superior work.

I also enjoyed the fact that while Wilson, in my opinion, did not downplay the religious elements of the conflict, neither did he see them as necessarily dominant. This was a fresh approach and one, I think, long overdue. He also does great justice to the horrific human costs of the war and what, especially, the protracted conflict did to a prostrate and screaming Germany both in the long and short term.

A fine, fine book. A must for the avid Europeanist.

Recommended without reservation.

First, let me say Wilson clearly knows what he's talking about, and has written a highly detailed work. Second, I'll admit that reading a work like this in 30-minute bouts on the way to work in the morning probably doesn't make me Wilson's ideal reader--but how do you plan on reading it?

My main problem with this work is that, if you know nothing about the Thirty Years War when you crack it open, you will know only slightly more when you close it. The subject spans hundreds of people and places and (to his credit), Wilson covers more than just thirty years. Yet it seems Wilson failed to see the forest for the trees, and he fails to present the reader with a clear, comprehensible narrative. Perhaps the scope of this subject means a clear, comprehensible narrative is impossible, but there are a few things Wilson could have done to make it better.

I understand the version I read was missing a map or two as endpapers. Not Wilson's fault. But the work could have used about 50 extra maps. How am I supposed to know where Lower Saxony is in relation to East Frisia in relation to Bohemia, not to mention the hundreds of other cities, towns, bishoprics, rivers, mountains, and other locations that are discussed? Maybe Wilson expects me to know this stuff, but if you are an unitiated reader like me, you'll find the action in this book extremely hard to follow. You also won't understand the importance of certain events if you don't know how close or far away one place is to another.

Similarly, the cast of characters is huge. The only reference Wilson provides, however, is a Habsburg family tree. Thanks, but that doesn't cut it. I, and probably you, could have used a clear, alphabetized, cast of characters with a quick blurb on each one. Otherwise, there are simply too many people to keep straight. When they start to run together, everything just becomes a confusing blur.

Wilson's writing style also assumes the reader knows a good bit about the period before picking up this text. Figures at this time often have a few names (duke of one place, king of another, etc.), their names often come from a place, and something important may have happened at that place. When I read (I'm making this example up, but it is typical) that "Saxony approved of X", does that mean the person the Elector of Saxony, the populace of the region of Saxony, or some treaty of Saxony? Wilson doesn't feel the need to clarify.

Organizationally, the book suffers from the same sort of academic writing that assumes familiarity with the topic wich makes the book unfriendly to the novice reader. Wilson repeatedly tells the reader to (see chapter 10) or some other chapter when he comes to various topics that don't fit into his structure. I understand the Thirty Years War is wide-ranging, but Wilson should understand that someone reading this for fun isn't going to flip ahead and read the chapters out of order just because Wilson couldn't figure out a clear structure. That's the historian's job, not the reader's. If the reader needs to know something, fit it in when the reader needs to know it.

Similarly, Wilson has a few excellent chapters at the end of the book that recount the total devastation of 30 years of war, and its impact on the economy and populations, etc. This is very useful and illuminating. But why did I have to wait until the end to find out how bad the war was? For a few hundred pages Wilson's main account of fighting is limited to "5,000 men went there, 7,000 men went here." Wilson does not seem to have the ability to pick out the illuminating details that enliven the story. The battles are poorly described (and the maps aiding them are confusing), and the full impact of the war and its devastation is barely discussed until after the war is over. Learning about population declines, plague, and failed harvests would be good to know in real time, rather than a few hundred pages later.

Again, Wilson's expectations for his reader come out when he describes "famous" events, or argues against "common interpretations" of the Thirty Years War. Being told that a particular event is famous or that it has been interpreted a certain way is important, and it keys the reader into a fuller understanding of an event. But it should not be a shortcut for failing to describe or explain an event. Imagine if a book about the American Civil War said no more about Gettysburg other than it was famous, or that many have argued that it marked a turning point in the war. You'd probably want to know more. But I felt repeatedly like Wilson used "famous" as a cop-out--"I don't have to describe this event because you should alread know it," and that he gave short shrift to explaining the reasons for the common interpretations he wished to counter. You are expected to know this already.

Lastly, the writing style is rather dry, although I must say not offensively so. The book is nowhere near as exciting as the picture on the cover (yes, don't judge a book by the cover, but then again, the cover is exactly what the publisher wants you to judge the book by). The writing itself is fine, but it's just that the other problems noted above impact your ability to enjoy the writing. As noted above, battles are poorly described, and key characters often aren't described with the lively spark the would make them stand out. Wilson does have some well written sections, however, so I think the failures in his writing stem from the fact that he's not interested in writing a general history for the masses. Characters don't pop because there are so many, and Wilson doesn't feel the need to distinguish them or aid the reader in keeping them straight becuase you should already know who they are. Battles aren't exciting because Wilson spent an early chapter describing battle tactics and a later chapter describing the impact of the fighting, so you're left with a dry account of troop movements to suffice for the actual battle. The politics of the situation seems lifeless because, again, the lack of maps leads the reader to forget the geopolitical impact of decisions, and Wilson's failure to paint the characters means it's hard to follow their motivation or care about what happens (assuming you haven't confused characters or their allies).

If you enjoy reading history, and find it fun and entertaining and educational all at the same time, and know nothing about the Thirty Years War, this is not the book for you. You will go in thinking the war was a big can of worms, and you will come out thinking the same.

This book has occupied my free time for the last 6 weeks, solid. It is extremely dense, beautifully written, and succeeds in tying together the various strands of a war tragedy more complex than any save perhaps the fall of Rome or the world wars of the 20C. The 30 years war is one of those watersheds, when an old order gives way to new directions that take centuries to work themselves out. Wilson's brilliant synthesis is exactly what I had hoped to find.

The roots of the conflict, in my reading, sprung from 2 essential sources: 1) the decline of the feudal order in Central Europe that had operated under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire and 2) the simmering religious wars of protestant and catholic. These unfolded symbiotically, but it was really the conflict of the princes and kings - attempting to consolidate their own forms of power in the emerging nation state - that employed the confessional question to their own ends, however sincere they were in their beliefs.

The Habsburgs (in both Spain and central Europe) were essentially feudal lords. One of their most important powers was the ability to confer nobility and authority on allies that would then be sworn to serve them in certain capacities, such as warfare against external enemies such as the Turks or rival Christian kingdoms. They answered to a plethora of institutions that carried their own rights and privileges, the complexity of which is nothing short of extraordinary (i.e. regions, nations, free cities, duchies, each with their own historical perquisites in the hierarchy). Often, the emperors served as arbiters to resolve conflicts between their princes and lords, but they also oversaw the installation of certain administrators and other officials to support the superstructure and finances of the Empire. Unsurprisingly, many princes wanted to establish their independence, particular when it came to their confessional preferences. The Emperor could not order them to do things, but had to both entice and threaten them.

With these tensions brewing, circumstances aligned themselves in the early 17C to favor prolonged war. First, after a long period of existential threat, the Ottoman Empire withdrew to fight in the east, depriving Christendom of a unifying external pressure. Second, there was a weak HR Emperor, Rudolf II, who withdrew from his responsibilities as maintainer of peace while beginning to impose a policy of replacing local protestant administrators with loyal catholic outsiders, threatening the beliefs (and careers) of innumerable princes and nobles in their fifes. His successor was also weak and pursued a rigid policy of installing catholic notables. Third, the Habsburgs were entering a period of extreme financial indebtedness, depriving them of the resources needed to defend their territories and promote economic stability. Fourth, there was the rise of new powers, from the proto-absolutism in France to the military dynamism of Sweden's King, Adolphus, centrifugal forces that added to the chaos. Fifth, with a change in inheritance law, there were many disenfranchised princes trying to make their way as adventurers and courtiers. With the advancement of individuals such as Wallenstein, who achieved noble standing through opportunistic military exploits that no one completely controlled and whose motives were largely unfathomable, they added a dangerous mix of ambition and volatility.

Once the war had broken out in a spontaneous "defenestration" in Bohemia - some protestant locals threw 2 catholic appointees out a 2nd-story window - the HRE first convulsed into civil war and then was attacked by outsiders while weakened. As the theatres of war moved about inside the HRE, which was complexity itself, it took on a life of its own with occupiers wanting territories for their own ends (or seeking to extricate themselves while saving face) and princes hoping to achieve independence of control over their territory or liberty to pursue their faith. It just went on and on. The resulting devastation makes WWII look almost like a minor skirmish. Some regions - from violence, plague, and emigration - lost between 10% and 60% of their populations. Millions of lives and livelihoods were destroyed, up to 25% loss of lives overall.

The resolution of the conflict is perhaps the most fascinating. It signals the end of the feudal era and the beginnings of both absolutism and the nation state. Replacing the personal concerns and egos of princes, entire nation states entered negotiations roughly as equals with legitimate concerns and interests rather than as members of a feudal hierarchy of set-to obligations. In addition, religious toleration was finally established, after laborious negotiations of rights of minorities to gain legal sanction for their style of worship. In many ways, it was the start of the modern age.

I do have my criticisms of the book. It is very hard to keep the various Rudolphs, Ferdinands, Philips, and Maximilians straight, and there is not much about their personalities or stories about them, except in a few rare cases. The details of each military conflict were also of little interest to me and bogged me down, though that is personal.

All in all, this is a great read on a fundamental period. There is also a fascinating analysis of the historiography of the conflict, how it was seen through the ages and what is wrong with the assumptions behind each approach. In other words, nationalists, Nazis, protestants, etc., saw different meanings according to their agendas. Great food for the brain.

This is a difficult book. Peter Wilson clearly has provided us with a detailed volume that is a major resource on the Thirty Years War. However, it is not a reader-friendly work. For one thing, we need more maps to make sense of events--whether of the entire region being discussed or lower level, more focused maps. For another, the actors move by in kaleidoscopic fashion, one after the other, and it is not easy to keep track of key players and the governments that they represent. A table summarizing such information at key points in the narrative would be useful.

However, one cannot question Wilson's mastery of the subject. He begins the work before the outset of the War, to provide background and context, and ground the sanguinary struggle within a larger setting. It is clear from the book that countries were trying to maintain some semblance of piece. But religious differences, dynastic power struggles, and a variety of other forces pushed toward war. The actors ranged, geographically, from Sweden to Spain, from France to the Ottoman Empire.

The war itself was brutal. There are maps outlining the basics of key battles, but, as noted, larger scale maps would have been useful. Also, the print in the maps is not the easiest style to read. Wilson provides a good sense of the ebb and flow of the war, as well as the varying skill levels of military commanders and their leaders.

The book concludes with a very detailed analysis of the end results and impact of the war. The Treaty of Westphalia has been hailed by many as marking the modern understanding of states and the concept of sovereignty. Wilson examines the contention skillfully. There were profound economic and demographic effects, as well as larger political consequences. Again, Wilson addresses these with considerable sensitivity, not given to hyperbole.

My sense (I am not an expert in this part of history) is that this is an impressive resource for those who want a detailed view of this historical trauma. But be forewarned that this is not a reader friendly work.

This is one of those books that inspite of its length, you just can't put down. I was trying to think of a single word to describe this book and words like "definitive" or "thorough" or "groundbreaking" all came to mind. While any of these words do fit, I simplified my choice by selecting "really, reaaly good." OK I know that's three words, but how else can such an excellent book be described? The Thirty Years War has always intrigued me, but general European history books often dedicate a couple of paragraphs to describe its fury. Even period history books gloss over and fall into the same generalizations that Peter Wilson takes over 850 pages of text to dispell.

Wilson sets out to identify myths and assumptions about the war that have emerged over the past three hundred years and does a magnificent job of doing so. There is nothing simple about the causes or the execution of the war, and Wilson points this out in his introduction. It was not merely a religious war where Protestants and Catholics fought over confession. The Holy Roman Empire had its Protestant commanders, and eventually Catholic France fought along side the Dutch and Swedes against fellow Catholics in Austria and Spain. But at the same time the war wasn't purely political as certain Imperial city-states switched sides based on the religious convictions of their rulers.

It is this web of intrigue and complexity where Wilson shines as both a scholar and an author. He covers the major military engagements, but as one reads this book, a clearer picture of seventeenth century life comes to mind. He also navigates through the various inconsistencies that have emerged throughout history regarding the war's impact. We tend to think of a totally devastated German landscape as a result of the war. But because the war moved in phases, from Bohemia to the Rhine, from Denmark to Bavaria, there was time for locals to recover their losses and rebuild. Ironically the war ended its final campaigns near where it started 30 years earlier. Of course the other factor was disease which probably killed more civilam=ns and soldiers than actual battles did.

But aside from the main military campaigns there was the war between Spain and the rebelling Netherlands. There was the risk of war with the Turks, though Wilson points out that the Ottomans had their own troubles with the Persians which limited their ability to intervene in Europe's war. All of these other conflicts and rivalries make up the complexity of Wilson's work. But this is more than just military history. Wilson keepws bringing up that great bugaboo of imperial conquest, the money to pay for it. It seems that every participant in the war had its problems raising money to pay for their involvement. Wilson includes finances in many of his chapters. He also mentions some aspects of popular culture. In fact he states that among the reasons there was a willingness for people to consider war in the first place was the changes the world was experiencing. Climate change was occurring, witchcraft was a fear, there were generational differences between parents and children, the plague would reappear without regard to confession or economic status. All of these had a part in the minds of the people of the time. Wilson uses these examples to demonstrate just how complex this topic really is.

I've never been good at predicting awards, but I do believe this book has the capacity to win some type of historical writin award, perhaps even a Pulitzer Prize. Regardless, this book is something that anyone interested in this time period should consider reading. This book has positioned itself to be the definitve work (at least in English) that will be hard for another book to challenge.

This book is the first one that I've read on this period of history. It is well-researched, detailed and thorough. The book appears to have covered all the events of this major war with a lot of lead up (in fact probably too much) to the war providing the reasons why the war was fought.

I can't give it a great review for the following reasons. (1) The lead up to the war providing the reasons why the war was fought was around 250 pages long. And, when I was done with it, I left with the reason that it was religious in nature (in spite of the fact that the author said that it was more complex than that). Was 250 pages necessary to come to this conclusion? (2) The author stated that this was a complex war, and reading the book, it sure came across that way since the book was very confusing to me. Names of individuals were provided in such a numerous fashion that I found myself not being able to follow all of them. And, although the major battles were depicted in maps in the book, I found the maps of Germany were inadequate to follow the campaigns. (And, in fact, there are no campaign maps.) So, I was confused also by all the place names and continued to try to follow this through the one map provided of Germany. That one map was inadequate.

So, my recommendation is that if you are very interested in history and especially European history, this book will interest you. However, in my opinion, this book isn't for the casual history reader who wants to learn something about this period of history. This person may never finish the book.

This book is a carefully researched and very detailed account of the Thirty Years War (C.E. 1618-1648) which author Peter Wilson refers to with remarkable understatement as an "extremely complex event." As this book makes clear the one common factor in the multitude of conflicts that are collectively called the Thirty Years War is that ambiguous entity called the `Holy Roman Empire' and its remarkable imperial dynasty the Hapsburgs. A second branch of the Hapsburg Dynasty formed the Royal Family of Spain-Portugal (and their collective New World Empire). This relationship directly and indirectly impacted on the War's duration and outcome.
Although the Thirty Years War is often portrayed as religious conflict between the Catholic Empire and Protestant German States by some students, it was considerably more complicated than this. Protestant fought bravely and well in imperial armies and Catholics did the same in nominally Protestant armies. Religion was one factor that was often transcended by secular issues. Denmark entered the war as the defender of Protestant rights, but really sought to expand Danish territory and influence at the expense of the empire. Sweden entered the War as the defender of German liberties, but really was trying to gain hegemony over the Baltic and wanted all or part of Pomerania and the Mecklenburg Coast. Spain was drawn into the War only to the extent that it needed a route through the Alps and the Rhineland to support its war with the Dutch. France was drawn in because it did not want to be surrounded by Hapsburg dominated territory and in support of the Dutch because it feared Spanish dominance. Polish and Hungarian interventions were usually opportunistic. The unhappy free cities, principalities, duchies, and minor fiefdoms that constituted 17th Century Germany sided with whoever offered the best terms regardless of their local confessional beliefs.
Reading this excellent narrative one can understand the power that Brecht's play "Mother Courage:" and Schiller's history of the war and his Wallenstein trilogy still exerts over modern readers.