jeeves | 14 Apr 2009 3:08 a.m. PST |
Could someone recommend to me a readable, but factual, history book under 1,000 pages about the thirty year wars in English? Not something pop culture, or academic, but somewhere in between. |
vexillia | 14 Apr 2009 3:47 a.m. PST |
|
jeeves | 14 Apr 2009 4:22 a.m. PST |
cool thanks. does anyone else have any suggestions? |
WKeyser | 14 Apr 2009 4:33 a.m. PST |
Gutherie, William P. BATTLES OF THE THIRTY YEARS WAR, 1618-1635 two volumes has become a bit pricey, it also has a number of problems, but for an overview for a wargamer in english nothing beats these. I know that On Military Matters has copies. William |
John Leahy | 14 Apr 2009 5:10 a.m. PST |
How about 'The Military Intellectual and Battle: Raimondo Montecuccoli and the Thirty Years War'. It's pretty good. IIRC, Russel Weigley's The Age of Battles has a good section on the 30YW. You can also find the Osprey campaign books which along with the Swedish books are good. Thanks, John |
Dave Jackson | 14 Apr 2009 5:52 a.m. PST |
Geoffrey Parker also wrote a good history link |
Mirosav | 14 Apr 2009 7:32 a.m. PST |
Wedgewood is a classic and my favorite, I've read it many times. Parker is also a good start if you are new to the period. |
Phillius | 14 Apr 2009 1:18 p.m. PST |
All of the above. Despite the problems, should that be questions, about Guthrie, both volumes are a great read, and will probably give you all you want to know. Until you want to try and understand the political reasons. Then your in for a lot of reading. |
Daniel S | 14 Apr 2009 2:05 p.m. PST |
Guthrie will certainly give all you want to know if you want a completly false and outdated description of TYW tactics, flawed & erronous order of battles and reconstructions of battles which contain detailed description of events that never took place. (And Guthrie lists the very sources which prove him wrong as part of his bibliography) Several of the descriptions of commanders involved in the TYW are completly fictious. The Breitenfeld chapter alone contains over a hundred factual errors. Your best choice in english would be Wedgewood and Parker though both suffers a bit from age and are not 100% up to current standards as far as the research on the subject is concerned. Peter Wilson's forthcoming "Europe's Tragedy: A History of the Thirty Years War" could be what you are looking for but it won't be published until July. |
lugal hdan | 14 Apr 2009 4:09 p.m. PST |
What about T.A. Dodge? Is he still in favor? Maybe that's not under 1000 pages though
|
Phillius | 14 Apr 2009 6:24 p.m. PST |
Daniel S I feel you are holding something back from us. Your quote "battles which contain detailed description of events that never took place" implies you are aware of what the errors in Guthrie are. Now call me pickie, but if you are aware of these mistakes (presumably because you have proof), shouldn't you be recommending the books which support your argument, not two that deal in a completely different level of detail? |
Shagnasty | 14 Apr 2009 7:50 p.m. PST |
Well said Phillius. It would be nice if some of the German and Swedish books could be translated into English as forwign languages are not my forte. The latest major biography of GA by Roberts is over 40 years old. |
Daniel S | 14 Apr 2009 9:02 p.m. PST |
Phillius, Since original message specificly asked for English language sources I restricted myself to those. The sources which prove Guthrie wrong are in German & Swedish. You will find many of them listed in Guthries bibliography. Indeed in some instances even the English language works listed by Guthrie does not support him. For example, in both volumes he claims that the Swedish cavalry fought in formations 4 ranks deep. Yet Barker (i.e Montecuccoli), Delbrück, Dodge, Gush & Roberts all write that the Swedes used a 3 rank formation
|
Phillius | 15 Apr 2009 2:45 a.m. PST |
Daniel Long time since I have read Montecuccoli, so I had a quick look. Your right. Isn't it possible though, that Guthrie just made a mistake? Or in fact, that he believed the other sources were wrong? Like us, he is/was entitled to his opinion. I can live with some confusion around the number of ranks the different nations deployed their horse in. Guthrie is quite explicit around the detail of the battles, I was hoping for resources that had more detail on the battles. Like Shagnasty, I find it frustrating that there is so little in English on this period of history. I have heard/seen people play down Guthries contributions before, but with very little evidence provided. You referred to Guthrie's interpretation of TYW tactics as outdated. However, he wrote his works in the 1950s, and both Dodge and Delbruck wrote in the 19th century. And hasn't Delbruck been rubbished by just about everyone? |
Mellehovich | 15 Apr 2009 5:02 a.m. PST |
As a miniatures wargamer, I'd also have to agree with sentiments that Guthrie is the best resource. That some details may be disputed by posters on this forum (e.g. one battalion had 10 less men, had green coats instead of blue, fought in 4 ranks instead of three) is mostly irrelevant to simulate 30YW battles with figures. No miniatures rules will go to that level of detail. In most cases, the miniatures rules will already dictate what formations troops should be in or their fighting style. For simulations, we mostly need to know numbers of infantry, cavalry, or guns; maps & terrain features, deployments etc. Guthrie does all that for the major battles where no other book I know of does. |
Daniel S | 15 Apr 2009 11:31 a.m. PST |
Phillius, Guthrie wrote his works much later than the 1950's, his two volumes were published in 2002&2003 and contains references to works published as late as the 1990's. Perhaps you meant Roberts? With regards to the number of ranks it's a matter of fact, not opinion. And as Guthrie repeates the description in multiple palces I find it unlikely to be a typo. The fact is that we have TYW period descriptions of a 3-rank formation by both Montecuccoli (who fought the Swedes) and Chemnitz (quoted in Delbrück), if Guthries wants to disprove their descriptions he must do so by using sources which describe the Swedes using a 4-rank formation. Merely having the opinion that the Swedes fought in formations 4 ranks deep is not good enough. I used the exampel of the depth of the Swedish cavalry formations because it is one of the few examples that most TMP members will be able to check for themselves. If I start refering "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632" or "Svenskt Krigshistoriskt Arkiv" 99% of the readers will be unable to check if I'm telling the truth or not. (These sources are rare and in Swedish) Let's take a look at some parts of the the Breitenfeld chapter. Page 16 "When he [Gustavus] came to the throne in 1611 Sweden had no army aside some a few Garrisons; the armed forces consisted of semifeudal noble cavalry and an infantry milita of conscripted peasants." This description has not fundation what so ever in the sources. On page 303 Guthrie lists "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632 as one of his sources. Volume I covers the perod of the Kalmar war and the war with Russia as well as the Swedish military system from Gustavus I onwards. It describes in great detail the fact in 1611 Sweden had large standing army of regulars supported by an extensive force of mercenaries. Pages 60-101, 145-176 341-372 contain the relevant information which disproves Guthrie. Appendix 8 shows Jacob De la Gardies army in Russia in 1611 with it's mix of native regulars and Scots, German and French mercenaries. Basicly Guthrie's descriptions bears little resemblance to the actual Swedish army in 1611. Page17 "The Scottish Green regiment" It's basic period knowledge that the Green regiment was Germans, not Scots. "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632" Volume II, pages 350-352 describe sin detail how this regiment was created from Brandenburg infantry which defected in complete units to the Swedes in 1627. Page 19 "200-man platoons" Swedish platoons were 50 men strong
Page 19 (as well as page 45 in Guthrie's 2nd volume, (the Wittstock chapter) describes Johan Baner as a jumped up commoner who had risen through the ranks from plain soldier to field marhsal and had a huge chip on his shoulder due to his lowly origin. In reality Johan Baner was born into one of the noblest and most influential aristocratic families in Sweden. He started his military carrer as an officer with the rank of Ensign. Basic facts which shows that much of Guthrie's description of Baner is pure fantasy. Page 20-21 contains a nice order of battle for Tilly's army with detailed unit strenghts. Impressive since no documents containing a detailed ODB for Tilly's army has survived, indeed we don't even know the basic positions of most of his regiments durign the battle. All of this described in "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632" Volume IV pages 464-465, 493-497 and appendix 10. Page 30-31 Guthrie describes in great detail the fight between the "Neu-Pappenheim group" and the Green brigade. There is however one not so small problem, it never took place. The regiments of Pappenheim, Grotta and Wahl got lost in the dust and smoke during Tilly's race to outflank the Swedes and took no part in the fight with the Swedes. We know this due to the fact that they joined up with Col. Wangler who described the events in detail in a post-battle letter. "Sveriges Krig" Volume IV, pages 510-511 describes this fact in detail. I've only focused on a few of the errors and with a narrow focus on mostly a single source in order to keep things simple. The reason I chose to use "Sveriges Krig" as the source of choice is that Guthrie praises it as the only "fully adequate account", yet time and again he ignores key information and basic facts found in that work. |
Daniel S | 15 Apr 2009 11:43 a.m. PST |
Mellehovich, Nice 'strawman argument' you have got going there, as I have shown in this and other topics here on TMP Guthrie's flaws goes way beyond coat colours or wether Alt-Tilly had 1200 or 1210 men in a particular battle. Is getting to know_any_ kind of numbers, maps and terrain more important than getting to know_accurate_numbers, maps & terrain? It does not bother you at all that Guthrie provides you and other readers with false information on those subjects? |
Phillius | 15 Apr 2009 1:04 p.m. PST |
Well when I looked last night, I'm pretty sure it said 1953. Although having said that, I will check again when I get home tonight!! But as Mellehovich says, as wargamers, we want to understand the battles, and Guthrie does that. He may be wrong in multiple cases about the detail. However, who else provides us with that information? Dodge, Delbruck, Roberts, Parker? Hardly. |
Phillius | 15 Apr 2009 1:17 p.m. PST |
However Daniel S, thanks for the explanations of your comments. It makes it much easier to understand your position. |
Daniel S | 15 Apr 2009 1:40 p.m. PST |
How can you understand a battle when the author describes events during the battle which never took place, leaves out regiments which fought in a battle or provides an deeply flawed description of the tactics used by an army? You simply can't. When you get hundreds of details wrong including very basic period knowledge the whole becomes flawed as well. It is one thing for Guthrie to make errors due to not having access to important sources. (For example his chapter on the Danish war is deeply flawed as he did not have access to Axel Larsen-Liljefalks indispensible work on the subject) But he actualy make claims which are contradicted by the very works he has listed as his sources. |
Daniel S | 15 Apr 2009 1:51 p.m. PST |
Hit submit too soon. I don't criticise Guthrie's work for the fun of it, I was actually saddend to find out that so much hard work had an end result that was so flawed. But because of those flaws the books in many case actually set back the knowledge about the period rather than advances it. That is why I'm critical of them. |
badger22 | 15 Apr 2009 8:55 p.m. PST |
Is there any english book that does have a good account of the battles? The only reason I dont have Guthrie is I cant afford it at this time. It sounds like he is the Hamilton-Williams of the thirty years war. That is sad because none of the other books I have found contain much in the way of battle description. I guess I am spoiled from the Napoleonic era, where every minor battle has at least a dozen books on it, and Waterloo has several hundred. I really would like something more than, there was a fight, the Swedish army won. But so far I have not found it. And I dont think I have the spare time to learn 2-3 more languages just so that I can read the originals. |
badger22 | 15 Apr 2009 9:01 p.m. PST |
Daniel S, do not take this that I am disagreeing with you. I could kick Hamilton-Williams if I found him. I dont want to learn another bunch of stuff that will take years for me to unlearn. I would rather get it mostly right from the start. But, again, other than the name of the battle, and who won, there seems to be very little in english to learn more about the battles. Not that I am likely to be able to afford guthrie any time soon, so I wont be able to learn the wrong stuff anyway. |
onmilitarymatters | 16 Apr 2009 12:18 p.m. PST |
This book is excellent: Item: 34500 Parker, Geoffrey THIRTY YEARS WAR, THE The best single volume account of this subject; Lots of contemporary b/w illust/maps, notes, biblio, index 1 vol, 384 pgs 1997 LONDON, ROUTLEDGE KEEGAN NEW-softcover, REVISED EDITION
$38.00 In stock
Dennis from OMM onmilitarymatters.com |
badger22 | 16 Apr 2009 5:30 p.m. PST |
Already have that one, and it has no battle data at all, other than name and who won. A great book, but of little use if you want to game battles from the era. |
balticbattles | 17 Apr 2009 12:44 p.m. PST |
Two more sources for refighting battles from: The 'Musket and Pike' Series from GMT games by Ben Hull gives you a Hex map of battlefields and all the units. From the text I understand that the group take historical research seriously. The 'Father_Tilly' yahoo group contains this set of rules plus a pile of 30YW battles written for it. No exact numbers, but at least you have units and comparative strengths. These are different from Guthrie so you either get the right strengths or some that are differently wrong! It's a shame about the lack of 30YW information in English – comparatively individual battles of the ECW have multiple books written about them – but I suppose you'd have to read several languages to have a stab a writing a book, and access to archives in several countries of Europe. And once you'd done it, someone would come up with a source you had missed that proved something that you said was wrong. I think that one of the things that could really help research would be publication of archival materials on the internet. I was recently pleasantly surprised by the number of books and documents that are out of copyright available on the internet. Maybe in a few years we'll all have access to many of the documents with automatic translation. |
Daniel S | 17 Apr 2009 1:41 p.m. PST |
Since England was at most a rather minor participant in the TYw the lack of English language works on the war is fairly easy to understand. In the same way you won't find much about the ECW in Swedish or German but can find numerous works covering the campaigns of the TYW. To write a military history of the entire TYW would be all but impossible for a single person. You would need to be fluent in at least 8 languages (or have access to translators) and the amount of research needed to cover 30 years of warfare is staggering. That is why even professional academics tend to rely so much on existing works which in turn gives many of the myths about the war prolonged life. That's why we get 30-deep tercios and caracoling cuirassiers even in books published very recently. |
badger22 | 17 Apr 2009 5:31 p.m. PST |
But all those same nations participated in the Napoleonic wars. And there are thousands of books in English on them. Yes England did participate, but not all that much. And America almost not at all. Yet the Austrian wars are covered very well in English. Yes I understand the politics are a lot more complex than in the Napoleonic wars, yet there are books that cover most of that fairly well. But battles? Or if you prefer, there are bunches of WWII books on the eastern front. And you can find a number of things on the Japanese-Russian fighting. I just fiond it very odd that nobody has found the interest to make a dent in this period. Well, I guess Guthrie did, but apperently, not that good of a one. Perhaps now that Thunder on the Danube is finished, we could convince Gill to take up a new period. |
Daniel S | 18 Apr 2009 11:46 a.m. PST |
The Napoleonic wars was a much larger conflict and one in which Britain was heavily involved. By comparison England and the Empire was never at war throughout the TYW. Some of the Austrian wars may be covered in English today but that was certainly not the case when I used to wargame Napoleonics back in the late 80's and in the 90's. And compare the number of books available in English about the battles of 1813 in Germany with the number of books about Waterloo
The eastern front is still poorly covered compared to the Desert War och the Normandy campaign, at least if one is lookign for high quality works. Much of what is available is written by fairly small group of researchers. The basic problem for the TYW author is that even if you focus on a fairly narrow slice of the war you will need to be able to read at least 2-3 languages and have access to sources that are often rare & hard to find. Then you'll need a publisher that is willing to print your work. TYW perido is not exactly seen as big market despite the obvious interest and in this economy finding a publisher is even harder than before. The alternative is of course to self publish but that is not without cost either. |
vexillia | 24 Aug 2009 3:20 p.m. PST |
|
BF Mark | 28 Aug 2009 7:31 a.m. PST |
Daniel S A friend of mine and I are just getting into the TYW and have purchased Guthrie's two volumes because of the extensive amount of information it provides useful for the wargamer. As a fellow historian, I appreciate your critical remarks, but I'm also disappointed because I don't have the language skills in German and Swedish to research in those sources. I'm not so much concerned about costumes/uniforms/flags, as I have found multiple sources to check against each other. I guess the only thing we can do regarding tactics, formations, and OBs is ask questions here and on other forums to try and get as close to well-informed opinion as possible. Mark |