A Brief History
On November 6, 1632 at the Battle of Lützen during the Thirty Years’ War, the Swedes won, but their King, Gustavus Adolphus, died in the battle.
Digging Deeper
The Thirty Years’ War was probably central Europe’s all-time worst religious war fought between Catholics and Protestants. Around two dozen different European countries and their colonies were involved in the conflict at some time or another from 1618 to 1648. With so many countries involved for so long, it should not be all that surprising that around 8 million soldiers and civilians are counted among the casualties of one of Europe’s top five bloodiest conflicts in its entire history.
By the early 1630s, neither Catholic nor Protestant Europe had decisively defeated each other. Yet, in this stage of the war, “The Lion of the North” or “the Golden King”, as Gustavus Adolphus the Great of Sweden was known, entered the conflict. One of the greatest military leaders of all time, Gustavus seemed poised to turn the tide of the conflict in favor of the northern European Protestants. In 1631, he won a decisive victory at the Battle of Breitenfeld. In that battle his Swedes along with his Saxon allies crushed his Catholic League opponents (The Holy Roman Empire along with Hungary and Croatia. The Protestants suffered only 5,500 casualties versus 27,000 Catholics.
Following up on this victory, Sweden won a couple more minor victories with the next major battle set to occur nearly 400 years ago on this day. Sweden’s army of around 20,000 would fight against the Holy Roman Empire’s army of roughly 20,000 as well. Ultimately, the Swedes won this battle as well, with one major problem: their king died under mysterious circumstances.
During the afternoon of the battle, Gustavus Adolphus, no armchair general, personally led a cavalry charge. Due to the combination of smoke from guns and a fog, he apparently separated from his men and disappeared from their view. Not knowing what happened to him, his soldiers first spotted his now riderless horse. It took another hour or two before his soldiers finally found their now dead king’s body, it having endured multiple gun shot wounds.
Although the Swedes still technically went on to win the battle, they lost their bold and brilliant commander. Instead of having a man who might have potentially been able to turn the tide of the war once and for all, the war dragged on for more than a decade longer. By the time the war concluded, it was no longer even about Catholics versus Protestants as Catholic France wound up fighting on the side of various Protestant countries against the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor. One might imagine how history may have been different, however, had Protestant Sweden gone on to deal a deathblow to that Catholic Empire in 1632…
Question for students (and subscribers): What if Gustavus Adolphus had survived? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For those interested in the battle itself, please see the following:
Brzezinski, Richard and Graham Turner. Lutzen 1632 (Campaign #68). Osprey Publishing, 2001.
For those who would like to learn more about Gustavus, please read the book seen below:
Dodge, Theodore Ayrault. Gustavus Adolphus. Da Capo Press, 1998.
For more on the war in general, I encourage you to read the below indicated book by one of my instructors at The Ohio State University:
Parker, Geoffrey. The Thirty Years’ War. Routledge, 1997.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="620 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=620">111 Comments
I think the most important fact in the article is that at the end of the war it was no longer Catholics against the Protestants. It just goes to show that when you fight for so long you are not fighting for the same thing in the end.
The most important detail of the article has to be the loss of the king: even in the midst of a victory, the loss of the loss of such an influential leader led to many more years of fighting and loss of life. It shows that the loss of one life can change the course of many people over a long time.
For me the most important detail seems to be the fact that we don’t learn a darn thing about history. Religious wars didn’t resolve anything back then and they don’t today either. I see so much on the news about global religious conflict, not to mention the conflict in our own country, that it bothers me people don’t learn from the past. When will we all just realize we can live on this planet of ours in peace, and not give a hoot about how or to who we pray?
I think the most important fact is that the king died. He had the ability to turn the tide of the war but unfortunately was unable to do so. If he had survived the outcome of this war could have been much different. His death changed the way everything else happened.
The most important thing would be the loss of the king. When he was alive, they were making progress and accomplishing the goals that they had made. But they were not able to finish there job due to his death. Another important fact is that the war had changed. It was not the war against the Catholics and Protestants. The war went on for so long, I guess the people forgot why it was started in the first place.
I believe the most important thing to be the death of the king. The war was unable to progress and it just became a war with meaningless deaths. It went on for a really long time, and they completely disregarded Catholics v. Protestants war and just began to fight for what seemed like nothing. The war was overall too long and should’ve ended long time prior, or possibly not have even started.
I think the most important thing that happened would be the death of the king. The king was leading his men, showing them that he was in it for them and that he was not above them in a sense, but rather on their side and willing to risk his life just as they were theirs. So when the king died, the troops had no one to motivate them and to keep them going in the face of battle.
I believe the most important thing that happened was the loss of the king. Him dying left the troops alone and no one to motivate them into battle. The war was a long drawn out battle, that should not have lasted that long.
I quoted in my midterm essay (in reference to Alexander the Great), that a pack of lions led by a sheep is less to fear than a herd of sheep led by a lion. I think this same thing applies here, these men did not have the lions heart that their now deceased king had, making them penetrable for sure.
I’m astonished at the number of how less casualties the swedes had in the battle of Breitenfeld.
These types of battle were hard fought by the way each army attacked with their attacks. Their weapons they had became more powerful as they learned that their enemy had more than they did
The Lion of the North is a badass.
You have to wonder how the war would have turned if Adolphus did not die. HIs battles seemed to be huge victories for the Protestant forces. I just have to wonder how many more battles he could have won and how that could have effected the length of the war.
It seems so strange to me that his forces would simply “lose” their leader in such an important battle! While I am sure it was a disorienting experience, the fact that no one was able to locate him just seems so ridiculous to me. Of course, this is coming from someone who has never been in a battle and who is able to find people simply by calling them. These things were unfortunately unavailable to them…
I find it brave that the King would go and fight with his troops, but it was unfortunate for everyone when he died. Not only did the country lose a leader, but the troops lost the one who was giving them motivation to keep going. Because of that, I feel like that is a reason why the war went on for a lot longer than it should have.
It is incredible that Gustavus Aldolphus was not an armchair general and sacrificed his life for his own victory at Lutzen. There needs to be more leaders like that instead of what I see in the present day.
The courage that Gustavus Adolphus showed during the battle at Lutzen is that which should be mirrored by all world leaders, both in present and past time. The benefit that this great victory had was that the Swedes established themselves as a world power militarily. The once thought quiet country ironically was tactically sound enough to act as a force to be reckoned with, effectively putting Sweden on the map as a military power.
It is truly amazing to me that this battle initially was between Protestants and Catholics. Was it really a religious war at first? Or was it just for control and power all along?
Gustavus Adolhpus went to battle with his men and died. Now they lost their great leader. So was it really a good idea for him to do that?
What a glorious leader! Too bad he did not survive the second major battle. He may been able to put an end to this war a lot sooner and spared many lives, but then we wouldn’t have such a catchy war name such as “The Thirty Years War”.
Gustavus was truly a great leader. Not only did he ride into battles with this men, rather than stay behind and watch the combat, but he also ended up getting killed fighting alongside his men for the cause. I think this says a lot about his character not only as a general, but as a man. Its no wonder that he is considered one of the greatest leader of all time.
Maybe all leaders should go to battle with their troops… this would probably stop many wars from ever occurring! — DAVID WARDLE
I feel that this was an ugly war, but then again it is always ugly when over religion. I think thibgs should be more like the old ime were the leaders went to battle too.
I think its admirable for a commander to take part as a soldier as well.
I think that Gustvus as a very brave and believed in strongly in what he was doing, takes a great leader to do what he did.
it would have been interesting to see how things played out if he would have survived.
long and brutal war
Its a shame the king who could have ended everything died.
I wonder what would have happened if both leaders had survived and if it would have altered history.
I wonder what would of happened if he didn’t die.
the only way to go as a king is in battle!
It really is interesting to think about how one man could have such an impact on the outcome of a battle, or even a war.
Too bad he didn’t survive. It probably would have greatly changed the outcome had he lived.
It’s crazy to think that one person dying in battle could have such a large effect on the world
A little bit pyrrhic, yes?
If the king had lived, the war could have ended much sooner. There also would have been less casualties from the battle.
It would be interesting to see what would of happened had he lived as the outcome was very different from what he imagined. It seems like this King was a true leader though who led by example and not just his word.
Its amazing sometime how the swing of a sword or the path of a bullet can alter history.
Gustavus Adolphus died for something he believed in. He fought for what he wanted.
That’s one thing that always got me when you see a war movie of them running at each other I can not tell who is who and it gets so confusing. I can not wonder why he lost his men and got away from them. But it was a battle so you can not expect anything less tan to die.
Our history could have been majorly alterer if one man lived. It’s funny to think like that, I guess that’s why in time-traveling movies they always cause problems by altering small things.
Reading this make you wonder how history would have been different if their king lived. Also, how would that have changed things today. It could have affected so many things.
Gustavus seemed like a great military leader. He led his army’s to huge victories and it is a shame he had to die in this one
Of all the reasons to kill people religion is one of the worst in my opinion theyre all bad dont get me wrong but religion especially
It is crazy to think of a country’s most powerful person leading troops into battle. As this article shows it comes with great risk.
It’s interesting thinking about a king on the frontlines in a battle.
Leading the troops into battle if you are the holy leader makes you seem just like anyone else to them.
A leader should be willing to do what he asks his troops to do.
One man could have completely changed the course of history, that rests uneasy with me.
Even though he died, he must have had respect from every troop for being willing to fight along their side instead of giving orders and watching from a distance.
interesting seeing leaders in the frontlines of war. imagine how stupid it would be for Obama or any of our past leaders in the front lines. pretty stupid to think about, but now a days imagine how many leaders we would have went through…
It seems very brave and makes a statment for a leader to be out there
It’s couragous that the leader decided to fight along side his troops instead of just watching.
It is interesting to hear that the general was the type of man who would lead the charge into battle. I am surprised I have not heard about him sooner and I am curious to the difference he could have made if he had not been killed.
I have much respect for Gustavus as a leader considering he was courageous enough to be on the front line of his troops and die for them.
After reading the previous article about the Vasa, I never would have guessed that Gustavus would be the type of man to fight on the front line. As he rushed the launch of the Vasa and approved a flawed design, he indirectly killed 30 people via the sunken ship. This article gives a new perspective regarding the King. I now have more respect for him, as he had enough courage to personally lead a cavalry charge and die for his troops.
It is admirable that Gustavus was willing to fight next to his soldiers during this bloody war. It does seem somewhat suspicious that in a 30 year war, he died during the battle that his country won.
Wars in the name of religion should never be called “holy wars”. It is a shame that Gustavus was killed during the battle ( it seems like he was a great leader), but it was very brave of him to actually fight with his men. He could have made a real difference in the overall length of the war.
The story makes you wonder what might have happened if the King wasn’t mysteriously killed. It really shows how dependent these people were on their leaders.
Gustavus Adolphus sounds like a brave and bold leader who would do anything for his troops. The war that went on between religions back then I think is similar to what is happening in todays United States with race. The “race wars” today are less violent and tons less dead but for instance MLK. How would these issues today be different if he was still around. Would we still have the saying “black lives matter” or would it be All Lives Matter. That is a question no one can answer but an interesting way if one of the leaders did not die.
Gustavus Adolphus was really brave to lead his men in that cavalry charge at the enemy. He fought alongside his men and I think it showed that he didn’t see himself as their better because he was king, but their equal and was willing to die alongside them.
When war goes too far, it is hard to even remember why you are fighting anymore. In this case, Catholics ended up fighting against other Catholics, which is bizarre to think about. In history, I think we see a lot of wars that drag on too long for a reason other than which it started.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened had Gustavus Adolphus not had died during the War. He was a brave and courageous leader who had a huge impact on the Swedes. Although they won the battle they probably could have done it quicker if their king were still alive.
I never really knew what the Thirty Years’ War was all about. I never really knew that the war started over Catholics vs. Protestants. In the end, Catholics ended up fighting against other Catholics. The whole purpose of the war seems silly to me, almost like the two sides forgot what they were even fighting about. The two sides were fighting just to fight.
Hmm this is actually an interesting topic. I don’t remember studying the thirty years war previously in school although I’m sure I’ve learned of it before. I did not know it was fought between Catholics and Protestants. It always baffles me that people kill each other to this day over which religion is the correct one. It seems a futile fight since we probably will never know which religion is correct or if there even is a God. It’s makes me think of the terrorism we face today that’s founded on similar grounds. That is, fought because of religious beliefs.
I don’t think there is a bigger defeat for a nation other than its King dying in the battle. However, the fact that Gustavus died in the battle made me reevaluate what I thought of him after his poor decision with the Vasa. He was truly a leader that everyone respected. I wonder if the war would have ended sooner if he was not killed. It is really sad to think that people, even today, fight for religion. I don’t think war is respectful of any religions and I am sure it is against all of them.
I had never heard of the 30 years war before, but I’m not surprised that a conflict of this magnitude was sparked by religious differences. I also didn’t know that Sweden was such a military powerhouse in the 1600s. I think it’s interesting that the Kings of the time engaged in battle alongside their men — especially when the death rates for soldiers was so high. While I certainly respect King Adolphus more for doing so, it clearly had a destabilizing factor once he was killed in the battle.
5,500 Protestant casualties compared to 27,000 Catholic casualties is an unbelievable statistic. I wonder what caused the battle to become so lopsided. After such victories in battle, it had to be devastating to the Swedes when the Lion of the North died. There is no greater honor than to die fighting for what you believe in, so I am sure that he was idolized by his men for his bravery and power.
It seems that this war has many questions due to what happened. A few being “what if Gustavus did not die in war?, “why did the war continue if towards the end some Catholics were fighting on the Protestant side?” and “how did Gustavus separate from his horse?”. It is unfortunate that this religious war caused eight million to die and to be known as one of the most horrific battles in European history.
This just shows how one single person can completely impact a single nation’s history and change the effects of world history forever. Thinking about situations like these is one of my favorite things of studying history. Reflecting on American history, what if the colonists didn’t have Washington or if Lincoln didn’t have General Grant in the civil war? The world would be much different today.
Almost seems to me the Protestants won if they suffered so much fewer casualties that is an amazing stat 5500 Protestants to 27000 Catholics , aside from that though it is amazing what one person can do and what effect they may have on a battle. Certainly the king is an important figure and if not for him, this battle could have turned a lot of things differently.
As Josh said below, amazing how important one man can be to the tied of a war and an entire nations future. In our Civil War, I remember learning about the generals that had tried and failed until we finally had one that was successful.
It blows my mind how one person can have such an influence on a war of this magnitude. It is amazing that the protestants suffered so much fewer casualties than the Catholics did. I am curious as to what caused the casualties to be so lopsided. I am interested as to what would have happened if their great leader and king had not died in this battle.
This battle shows how important one person can be to the outcome of a war and future of a nation. This man must have been one intelligent and influential person. I was surprised to see that the Protestants had suffered much fewer casualties than the Catholics. The entire war seemed to become pointless because it had went on for so long and they lost sight of what they were fighting for in the first place.
The biggest thing that stuck out to me as I’m sure anyone reading this is the casualty difference, from 5500 protestants to 27,000 catholics dying. There had to have been something big to cause such a deadly event for the catholics.
Just a question.. what would have been the outcome if the King had not gotten caught in the fog? He probably would not have been found dead with gun wounds, but also the outcome may have been quite different as well..
As a soldier, there is probably nothing more motivating than your king leading you into battle. However, the price that the country paid was probably not worth it.
Crazy that this war actually lasted 30 years. The amount of causalities during the war are horrific but I guess that’s what happens when two parties fight for 30 years. Very sad.
This is just one example of how important one person can be in war. There have been many who became the leaders that caused big turning points in past wars and the is a fine example of one.
It’s crazy that these Catholics and Protestants fought over a religious topic for 30 years. Does this seem outrageous to anyone else?
He’s a good leader leading his troops into battle and seeming him fight beside them gave them purpose. It’s sad he died because who knows what he could’ve done if he lived.
What a badass guy… just imagine being behind him during that charge
No point in winning the battle If you cant celebrate your victory afterwards! Crazy and ballsy man. He’s got my respect.
A great leader defines a great army. I would be honored to fight behind him!
8 million people died??
That is what happens when you have a war lasting 30 years!
soon many!!!!!!!!! people dies thats crazy just manslaughter !!!! Wish people see a different way to go to war, like thumb wars or something or just threats till someone gives up lol.
If you win the battle but the leader you follow and fight for is died, did you really win? It’s hard to continue to read how many people lost their lives due to their beliefs.
Although it’s very disheartening to constantly be reading about so many wars and deaths it is nice to read that a leader actually fought with their soldiers!
i like like how their leader fought by their side instead of being on the sideline but that was a lot of people who died.
Someone who works/fights along side their men/soldiers tends to boost moral. I think that it was great of him to do so.
A true leader leads from the front i guess
Someone who is on the frontline and fights alongside their men is a true leader. It’s just sad that millions of people died from this war.
I like when the leader fights along in a battle with his men. It makes much more sense then having him stand in the back and not fight at all.
This makes me think about what the outcome would have been had Gustavis survived the battle and gone on to win more battles.
Someone should make a movie about his life and strange death (if it hasn’t been done already).
That thirty-year war was extreme if only Gustavus could have ended it early.
I was surprised to read that he was on the frontline. I never hear about military leaders being on the frontline.
talk about bad timing. He was so inconsiderate to die. If he wasn’t so selfish and died later on just imagine what the outcome could have been. (i’m obviously joking about it being his choice to die). seriously though, he could have turned the tide of the war, but think of the tactical advances he could have made. more so than what he already did.f
He died but lived on through his men.
It’s sad that he had to die just when the war started getting good.
It would be interesting to see how history would play out if Gustavus Adolphus had not been active in any of his battles. Would the Swedes have been able to end the 30 years war early?
it’s very interesting that he was in the front line of the battle
I respect their leader because he went to the front line knowing he may die and that is courage.
It’s sad Gustavus Adolphus died in battle, but I wonder what would happen if he hadn’t died that day. I wonder if the war would’ve ended shortly, or if it had continued happening like it did. Definitely respect him for attending battles with his army, since most monarchs did not engage in physical battle.
A leader dying for the cause they believe in is admirable and takes courage.
I think it is crazy to think over 30 years of fighting with so many different countries, the death toll is approximately eight million.
You don’t see many stories about how Generals and high ranking officers lead and actually fight in the wars anymore, so the fact that Gustavus did what he did is incredible and very brave.
A true leader up until the very end! I still find it horrendous that humanity spent 30 years slaughtering each other over religious beliefs.
Interested in reading about the other 4 of Europe’s Bloodiest battles
It’s interesting to think that if Gustav had remained alive that the entire war and its Outcome could have dramatically changed. But how do we know things would have changed for the better.