I'm thoroughly enjoying your "Church History" series and am learning very much. One thing I was a little surprised about when you were covering the 16th century and the many attempts by the "Catholic Church" to stop the spread of the Reformation and it's significant negative impact on people's "faith" in the Catholic Church, is that I do not recall you describing one of the commissioned tactics of the Jesuits was assigned to Francisco Ribera. He was basically commissioned to alter biblical teaching regarding "Futurism" by revising interpretation of scripture in Daniel associated with the 70 weeks as well as interpretation of specific chapters in Revelation in order to remove the proclamation at that time that the "Papal System", Catholic Church as being the anti-Christ and declare the anti-Christ would be a single individual to appear many years in the future. Francisco Ribera published his 500 page commentary around 1590. To me, this happening is more than just significant at the time of publishing even though it was basically rejected by all non Catholic believers. It seems to me that it has taken a "magnificent hold" on the belief of many present day Christians with regards to the "Futurist" viewpoint of Revelation to their detriment in so far as being a major "distraction" with regards to what we should all be focusing on much more than what we believe will "happen in the future".
prof Gore. I truly appreciate your lecture. At 12 yrs old, I read a children's book untitled " the lion of the North" about Adulphus. He is now my historical hero mostly because the lack of knowledge in the US about this genius. Some of my meager research differs from yours but you have the degree and I just read allot. you are actually the first American prof. who has more that a passing interest in the Vasa destiny. I just wanted to congratulate you. i take my first world history class in the fall so thank you.
Very much loving this series and loved the message at the end. My pastor is also a professor and taught church history at Greenville Presby Sem so it's great listening to this while also learning southern Presby history at the same time :-)
10 років тому
Go to the real Presbyterian church where they do what Jesus commanded - feed the poor, visit the prisoners, heal the sick. Get out of the Pharisee's church, the PCA.
"A good Christian can never be a bad soldier, and the man who has finished bis prayers has already got over the best half of his day's work."- Gustavus Adolphus, after falling to his knees in prayer upon landing ashore with his army to fight for religious freedom in Germany against the Holy Roman (Catholic) Empire who were attacking the German protestants.
Despite my lack of belief in any sort of religion i found this extremely compelling from start to finish and i'm curious to see what other videos this channel might have, initially came upon this video after trying to look up a bit more info about Gustavus Adolphus. Amazing what sort of knowledge rabbithole video games can take you on, Eu4 and Sabaton's "Lion From The North" brought me here :D
Indeed! Not many kings have fought alongside their men in battle. The one giving the order shall fight it, and not sit and smoke cigars as all the leaders do, while the soldiers die. The worst thing is in modern times, soldiers die for some greedy politicans who are not ready to give their lives for something they have ordered. Sure some will say, if the king or leader die the empire will, but thats bullshit. If you give the order, you shall be ready to die as all the men you are sending out to fight it.
he sounds outspoken against the new world order if you ask me. i respect his will. true he shows some bias but its not as easy to take an unbiased perspective on things. he speaks from the heart. that is commendable.
France sided with the Protestants because both the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Spain were members of the House of Habsurg. If the Holy Roman Emperor had defeated the protestant princes in Germany France had been completely surrounded by countries ruled by the House of Habsburg (Spain, most of Germany, Spanish Netherlands). France could not allow that to happen because it would severely change the ballance of Power in Europe. The French rememeberred very well how Charles V of the House of Habsburg who was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain at the same time defeated and captured King Francis I of France.
At the point where France became securely the dominant nation in Europe after 1660, the King of France Louis XIV suppressed protestantism in France, driving many French protestants (Huguenots) into exile. Quite a lot of them ended up in Berlin - ironic given that 2 centuries later the Prussians finally smashed France's military power and created a united Germany. Poetic justice?
According to the Swedish educational teachings, Sweden recieved enormous subsidies from France, who were obviously keen on keeping their powerful neighbor divided and wanted Sweden to enter the war. Gustavus Adolphus had everything to gain by entering the war. The war was paid for, initially by the French crown and then later by the supplies of battlefield cities, as per usual. No king with confidence in his army would refuse such an oppertunity. The prize of Swedish expansionism had always been to envelope the Baltics and the Thirty Years War fit that masterplan perfectly.
I know, everything I read about sweden entering the war was mainly to gain power and territory (dominium maris baltici) and that religion was more of a reason than a factor. And as you say, French Finances, Swedish Swords.
ps. I was always under the assumption that "all" H.R. empires were required to be Hapsburg or that linage Gustuphus Adulfus 1. produced the first army to have a unified uniform based on Blue and Buff. 2.Designed small caliber cannons by developing field artillery that made barrels wrapped in leather to lighten the load. 3. the only monarch to use mobile cavalry.in consent with the use of pistols 4. reorganized the blocking of infantry in order to .redirect his armies to face assaults from all sides quickly.. thr list goes on and on.
He pretty much just skipped the whole part of Gustavus redefining warfare from the old spanish-style. But then again, he went full Pennsatucky in the end so...
He also skipped the military revolutions of Prince Maurice of Orange-Nassau (before Adolphus) and of Oliver Cromwell (after Adolphus), which can all be seen as redefining European army composition (essentially more mobile units, combined arms, greater emphasis on increasingly effective firepower) in the span of about 60 years. They can be seen as one continuous development on the by then outdated Spanish tercios system. These allowed European armies to punch way above their weight and colonise much of the world.
Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I'm using the common American pronunciation of Huguenot, with apologies to French speakers! On Navarre, I stand corrected.
There are always multiple motives for any actions performed. Trying to identify them completely, mostly becomes speculation. Now, if you go to war and you put your own life into 50% survival chance/risk, the motives are more than just som economical or territorial gains.
There was also the concern that if the Catholic league got control over the north german coastline they could start to build ships to challenge swedish control of the Baltic Sea.
I understand this speech was meant to pay respects to Gustavus Adolphus and the Protestant cause, but it was pretentious in that it cherry-picked events to make Catholics look like the bad guys and Protestant like the good guys. Although politically I do tend to side with the Protestants in this conflict, both parts commited abherrant atrocities against humanity. Regardless of where you want to put the focus of your speech, painting a story as black and white is not only wrong, but actually promotes the dangerous process thought of "us, the good" and "them, the evil". This being said, I do agree he was a great king and one of the few who showed some concerns for the wellbeing of the population.
Sorry, but this lecture got lots of incorrect information about the Thirtyyearswar. It's like always: the bad guys were not as bad and the good guys were not so good.
The 30 Years war reminds me of the 30th book Amos and the 8 cities to be burnt by fire. Also 1Samuel 30 when the Amalekites had kidnapped David and his men's wives captive.
Wouldn't exactly call Ferdinand's actions in 1620 a brutal assault on Protestantism. Bohemian nobles started the rebellion and Count Mansfeld's unruly band of mercenaries were the ones plundering south Bohemia, while Bethlen's violent band of Hungarians slaughtered their way across Upper Hungary and into Austria to the gates of Vienna itself. Later, the Upper Austrian Peasant Rebellion (that wiped out Protestant communities) was crushed by Bavarians, since Ferdinand had been forced to give the place away to Maximilian as war cost collateral. The emperor's preferred policy was not to wipe out Protestant communities by the sword, but to exile their landholders and steal their land. It was a clerical land confiscation which followed Imperial armies everywhere.
Not many kings have fought alongside their men in battle. The one giving the order shall fight it, and not sit and smoke cigars as all the leaders do, while the soldiers die. The worst thing is in modern times, soldiers die for some greedy politicans who are not ready to give their lives for something they have ordered. Sure some will say, if the king or leader die the empire will, but thats bullshit. If you give the order, you shall be ready to die as all the men you are sending out to fight it. So all the modern soldiers that fight today for bullshit greedy politicans, should do some hard thinking, but propaganda have fucked you all. But tbh the only country that wages war today are USA and Israel, they are the modern day Rome. Thousands of children die each day due to their sanctions agaisnt different countries. But the people are brainwashed in defending their country. Defending what? US builds military bases all over the world, and closer and closer to Russia and Iran. And when Russia did send some nuclear planes to south America a year ago, US went bananas. So its ok for you to build near Russia and not otherr vise? Evil nation of satan, if you belive Jesus will save you, think about all the children that die each day thanks to your goverment. And no im not speaking about the normal american people as they are great and lovely people, just way too brainwashed. problem is your evil goverment. All these millions of immigrants in Europe are here for a reason, thanks to you. Europeans will aid Russia over US. Well the left wont, but no one likes them anyway. And media is left winged, so all you hear about europeans love americans , well brainwashing. Not many people like US actually, but most of us know its the goverment and not the people. US pay big money to the media in Europe to be anti Russian and pro American, but we are smarter and we see through that bullshit. As i said leftish dont, but no one cares about them. Be as angry as you want and call me names and let that ego out, buty this is pure facts.
I think to most Sweds nowdays concider Gustav II Adolf's grandfather Gustav Vasa or Gustav I to be the most famous swedish king in history. He's one could say the swedish version of Henry VIII.
So I was watching this for the historical aspect and was not at all ready for his manic raving at the end. It sort of came out of nowhere and really ruined the whole thing.
Another great lecture; especially the lesson at the end. Strange that this particular lecture prompted such struggle and confusion in the comment section with regards to understanding the perspective of this series. What's that old saying... something about a rock and a yelping dog? ;-)
August Blomberg Ehm, why? He won once, lost once and died in the third battle. He never showed amazing tactical skill or anything. I am Swedish and even I think he is highly overrated.
Won once? You even know anything about the guy? He was a tactical genius!. Even if you are a swede, i see you dont know anything about you own history. Seems that you talk more about your own feelings and thoughts.
I would say both... I think it's hard to get past theology in history, when theology was a large part of history until (as taught here) the end of the Thirty-Years War in 1648 which marked the last major 'religous' war in Europe, with the peace of Westphalia. Also this was part of the reformation, which was all about religon.
***** As Christian Lolarga mentions religion played a huge role in Europe at the time, the war was started on religious grounds after all. People were a lot more religious at the time. Religion played a huge part in the military as well. In Swedish military books from the time one can read a lot about religion. For example one imporant book tells that "The bullet doesn't hit the man" which meaned that there was no reason to try and avoid bullets or cannonballs since it was God that decided if you would be hit or not. And God would only let the sinners be hit. This created a very strong moral in the Swedish military which was partially a reason for the Swedish successes in the Thirty Years War and the Great Northern War as well where Charles XII won battles against even worse odds than Gustavus Adolphus did in this war.
One of the best lectures I have ever listened to (all series). Really clarifying and give a bigger picture of the history intersected and overlapped by christian matters in detail person scale as well as countries. Unfortunately, I must say, some key Reformation and political plots concerned Poland are omitted (presumably due to lack of time). Here are some notions: In the XVI and XVII century that was almost a key country for the Eastern Europe. It was a big and quite rich (for the time) country. In XVI cent. almost 1/3 of nobility was Calvinists. Calvinists churches spreat not only in Poland but also in Great Duchy Lithuany reaching Belorussian, Ukrainian and Russian lands. Poland was the only country where there was peace and all confessions could coexist. Poland gave shelter for many exiles (Anabaptists, Moravians, Arians, Jews). John Lasco was Polish. King Sisigmund II August was very close to introduce National Church. His wife was a Calvinist, a sister of the greatest nobleman in Great Duchy Radzivill who sposnsored and protected whole Calvinist church in this vast land. The whole Senate was Calvinist at this time. The peak of the Polish Reformation was in 1573-The Warsaw Confederation was signed , - was an important development in the history of Poland and Lithuania that extended religious tolerance to nobility and free persons within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[1] is considered the formal beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in fact is the first such document in Europe. While it did not prevent all conflict based on religion, it did make the Commonwealth a much safer and more tolerant place than most of contemporaneous Europe, especially during the subsequent Thirty Years' War. (wikipedia). After the mysterious death of the Sisigmund the next kin was Henry III himself. "the Polish delegation asked Henry to take an oath, at Notre Dame Cathedral, to "respect traditional Polish liberties and the law on religious freedom that had been passed during the interregnum".[15] As a conditions to his election, he was compelled to sign the Pacta conventa and the Henrician Articles, pledging religious tolerance in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[16] Henry chafed at the restrictions on monarchic power under the Polish-Lithuanian political system of "Golden Liberty". (wikipedia) Just to mention that Poland at that time was quite modern in some respects: In many aspects, Polish culture had a positive influence on France. At Wawel, the French were introduced to new technologies of septic facilities, in which litter (excrement) was taken outside the castle walls.[19] On returning to France, Henry ordered the construction of such facilities at the Louvre and other palaces.[19] Other inventions introduced to the French by the Polish included a bath with regulated hot and cold water, as well as forks. Henri III (1551-1589) [...] he is widely credited for having introduced the fork into France.[wikipedia)
This is kind of ridiculous. Everyone everywhere believed that God was on their side back then. Strong convictions can win battles, but smart tactics will also help.
Drake had no effective input into the 'Armada' failing in English Channel currents as the slave owner Abram had no part in ending the sacrifice of the eldest son in ancient Hebrew culture, the slave owner Moses had no part in the so-called 'Exodus', or the slave owners Washington and Jefferson (serial slave rapist!) had no part in the American Colonial Revolution.
Great lecture and many thanks...but hell fire man your accent murders European words. Hugenot..... try Huwgenoh ...there is no hard T at the end. Navarre ..... its pronounced again with soft sounds... Navahr If you get a chance watch La Reigne Margot.... I think you will like it and it will help with the French words. still....minor jinks in the ear. Its a great lecture all the same.
Bruce Im really sorry if my criticism came across as petty narks....it wasnt intended that way at all. Your students are damn lucky to have you and I envy them....online lectures are great but you dont get the after lecture interaction. The accent thing is just a minor jink...After all I say Tomatoe and all that ;-) As someone once said...two nations separated by a common language. As well as La Reigne Margot (which is based on the Victor Hugo novel and so is only semi historical) you could look out for "Henry of Navarre" (aka Henry 4th) which is more of a historical biography film. Both well worth watching if only to see a little covered part of history on film. PS: love you rocking that Richelieu costume.
Excellent history. Well presented also. I understand it was not really thirty years but stop and go and someone later scored it thus. It does seem to be Gods providence to save the true faith or rather innocent people and punish the bad. Sweden was to rise, alongside the protestant nations, in intellect, morality, wealth, prestige and the cAtholic ones to become just secondary ghettos of civilization.
"Gustavus Adolphus crossed the Baltic, seized the island of Rügen, and carried his arms over the Vistula, the Rhine and the Danube. He fought two battles. Victorious on the field of Leipzig, he also won the battle of Lützen, where he was killed." "Such a short military career has bequathed great memories - his great boldness, rapid movements, order, and the intrepidness of the troops. He was animated by the same principles that guided Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar... In eighteen months he won one battle, lost another and was killed in a third. His reputation was certainly acquired cheaply... Tilly and Wallenstein were better generals. No masterly movement on his part is recorded; he abandoned Bavaria because of the maneuvers of Tilly, who understood how to force him out of the country, and he let Magdeburg fall before his very eyes. That's a neat reputation for you!" Napoleon Bonaparte, in private correspondence with his brother Joseph in August 1806. I think Napoleon sums it up quite nicely. Gustav Adolph might have been a man of character, as a military commander he seems to be overestimated.
I don't want to be a smart ass but you're wrong, and so was Napoleon. Gustavus Adolphus fought one war with Denmark, three wars with Poland-Lithuania and one with Russia before he got involved in the 30 years war. From experience of those wars he reformed his military, and created the foundation of our modern military system. Praises or not from Napoleon are irrelevant, stick to facts.
Jelubaful Napoleon gives brief yet factual information in his letter regarding the conduct of Gustavus Adolphus in the thirty years war which form the basis of his judgement regarding the reputation of Gustavus Adolphus as a general. You have not adressed any of them. Stating the swedish king had conducted wars prior to the thirty years war tells us nothing of his abilities as a general. Oddly you do not defend said abilities by providing concrete information or examples. I have not commented on the army reforms, nor has Napoleon mentioned anything about the reforms in his letter. That being said, I think your claim about the importance of Gustavus' reforms (it being the foundation of our modern military system) is a considerable overestimation. It builds on the reforms of Maurice of Nassau and as such is another step in the evolution of warfare over the ages.
Epicurus78 The very same could be said about Napoleon. Who is quoted correcting Charles XII on how to win a Russian campaign, only to make the same mistakes. Overestimated or not, the impact these leaders had on the continent were "great". Gustavus Adolphus modern army with innovations like the Swedish salvo, standardization of the light musket and a new offensive artillery made critical history. Even if in reality they were light adjustments and the man a modest general. The glorification of history, especially of leaders who command or fight themselves are often given more space. Thus the higher reputation despite the results. Military turning points are often given the same treatment. In the case of Adolphus, his short military campaign in Germany overshadows his legacy for northern Europe and Sweden in particular.
tyskbulle Napoleon once said that "One has a certain time for war", inferring that as one aged, his abilities might decline. Even though he doubtlessly made this comment without thinking of himself we can all agree in retrospect that it certainly applies to him. By 1812 his health was severely weakened due to his lifestyle and his clarity of vision obscured by a misplaced sense of destiny and an obsession with his feud with Great Brittain. Even so, Gustavus Adolphus in my view certainly does not measure up against the corsican as a general. It is only because I disagree with the perception that GA was a great commander that I have made my comment, not because of his army reforms (which were inflated by the previous commentator) or his political legacy.
Breitenfeld Schwedisch Saxony Forces 36000- 40000 men and 60 guns versus 32000 men and 30 guns of the Katholic Liga.Sir, you really create your own history. Please check your numbers before blabla.
The captured cannons you mention were turned against the Catholic forces on that flank. At roughly the same time, the Swedish artillery began its own bombardment from the opposite direction. The battle lasted for some time after these events, but the Catholics were unable to maintain their lines and were killed or captured. Since Wallenstein is being mentioned here, it is worth noting that he was not the commander at this battle.
American? Please, do not blame the academia of two continents for the failure of the U.S. educational system to teach about other cultures, including at the advanced collegiate level.
the ending of this lecture illustrates the hideousness of dogmatic faith and gives a warning of the danger of theocracy. i am thoroughly disgusted! this is one of the worse videos i have come across
I'm thoroughly enjoying your "Church History" series and am learning very much. One thing I was a little surprised about when you were covering the 16th century and the many attempts by the "Catholic Church" to stop the spread of the Reformation and it's significant negative impact on people's "faith" in the Catholic Church, is that I do not recall you describing one of the commissioned tactics of the Jesuits was assigned to Francisco Ribera. He was basically commissioned to alter biblical teaching regarding "Futurism" by revising interpretation of scripture in Daniel associated with the 70 weeks as well as interpretation of specific chapters in Revelation in order to remove the proclamation at that time that the "Papal System", Catholic Church as being the anti-Christ and declare the anti-Christ would be a single individual to appear many years in the future. Francisco Ribera published his 500 page commentary around 1590. To me, this happening is more than just significant at the time of publishing even though it was basically rejected by all non Catholic believers. It seems to me that it has taken a "magnificent hold" on the belief of many present day Christians with regards to the "Futurist" viewpoint of Revelation to their detriment in so far as being a major "distraction" with regards to what we should all be focusing on much more than what we believe will "happen in the future".
prof Gore. I truly appreciate your lecture. At 12 yrs old, I read a children's book untitled " the lion of the North" about Adulphus. He is now my historical hero mostly because the lack of knowledge in the US about this genius. Some of my meager research differs from yours but you have the degree and I just read allot. you are actually the first American prof. who has more that a passing interest in the Vasa destiny. I just wanted to congratulate you. i take my first world history class in the fall so thank you.
If you ever want to know what an excellent lecturer is, listen to this guy.
Very much loving this series and loved the message at the end. My pastor is also a professor and taught church history at Greenville Presby Sem so it's great listening to this while also learning southern Presby history at the same time :-)
Go to the real Presbyterian church where they do what Jesus commanded - feed the poor, visit the prisoners, heal the sick. Get out of the Pharisee's church, the PCA.
They both believed God was on their side.
The retelling of Gustavus Adolphus's conviction to assist his brethren is powerful.
Gudtavus zdolphus explained his reasons gor entering the war to the king of Denmark. Religion was not one of his motives.
"A good Christian can never be a bad soldier, and the man who has finished bis prayers has already got over the best half of his day's work."- Gustavus Adolphus, after falling to his knees in prayer upon landing ashore with his army to fight for religious freedom in Germany against the Holy Roman (Catholic) Empire who were attacking the German protestants.
Praise God for such a stirring example of one such as Gustavus Adolphus.
So metal, he has a Sabaton song.
May God raise again another Gustavus Aldolf
Gustavus Adolphus!
Libera et impera!
Acerbus et ingens!
Augusta per augusta
+ZuoCruz Because Sabaton.
r/expectedSabaton
Wow! I have not heard of these heroes like King Gustavus of Sweden.
Despite my lack of belief in any sort of religion i found this extremely compelling from start to finish and i'm curious to see what other videos this channel might have, initially came upon this video after trying to look up a bit more info about Gustavus Adolphus.
Amazing what sort of knowledge rabbithole video games can take you on, Eu4 and Sabaton's "Lion From The North" brought me here :D
+derp herp Thanks! ...and good luck in your gaming!
That was a great lecture! I was hoping you would have covered Wallenstein's death though.
Thanks! I'll keep your suggestion in mind for next time!
he starts talking about the thirty years war at around 19:34
The most badass king ever
Indeed! Not many kings have fought alongside their men in battle. The one giving the order shall fight it, and not sit and smoke cigars as all the leaders do, while the soldiers die. The worst thing is in modern times, soldiers die for some greedy politicans who are not ready to give their lives for something they have ordered. Sure some will say, if the king or leader die the empire will, but thats bullshit. If you give the order, you shall be ready to die as all the men you are sending out to fight it.
Cyrus?
Very good lecture and very well spoken there at the end. You are a great man.
+Dimi Tenentes Thank you!...you're pretty nice yourself!
So much for a video whose title is only half of the video.
he sounds outspoken against the new world order if you ask me. i respect his will. true he shows some bias but its not as easy to take an unbiased perspective on things. he speaks from the heart. that is commendable.
pretty great lecturer
France sided with the Protestants because both the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Spain were members of the House of Habsurg. If the Holy Roman Emperor had defeated the protestant princes in Germany France had been completely surrounded by countries ruled by the House of Habsburg (Spain, most of Germany, Spanish Netherlands). France could not allow that to happen because it would severely change the ballance of Power in Europe. The French rememeberred very well how Charles V of the House of Habsburg who was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain at the same time defeated and captured King Francis I of France.
Helpful background. Thank you!
At the point where France became securely the dominant nation in Europe after 1660, the King of France Louis XIV suppressed protestantism in France, driving many French protestants (Huguenots) into exile. Quite a lot of them ended up in Berlin - ironic given that 2 centuries later the Prussians finally smashed France's military power and created a united Germany. Poetic justice?
According to the Swedish educational teachings, Sweden recieved enormous subsidies from France, who were obviously keen on keeping their powerful neighbor divided and wanted Sweden to enter the war. Gustavus Adolphus had everything to gain by entering the war. The war was paid for, initially by the French crown and then later by the supplies of battlefield cities, as per usual. No king with confidence in his army would refuse such an oppertunity. The prize of Swedish expansionism had always been to envelope the Baltics and the Thirty Years War fit that masterplan perfectly.
I know, everything I read about sweden entering the war was mainly to gain power and territory (dominium maris baltici) and that religion was more of a reason than a factor. And as you say, French Finances, Swedish Swords.
ps. I was always under the assumption that "all" H.R. empires were required to be Hapsburg or that linage
Gustuphus Adulfus 1. produced the first army to have a unified uniform based on Blue and Buff.
2.Designed small caliber cannons by developing field artillery that made barrels wrapped in leather to lighten the load.
3. the only monarch to use mobile cavalry.in consent with the use of pistols
4. reorganized the blocking of infantry in order to .redirect his armies to face assaults from all sides quickly..
thr list goes on and on.
He pretty much just skipped the whole part of Gustavus redefining warfare from the old spanish-style. But then again, he went full Pennsatucky in the end so...
Gustufus Adulfus? Lol
He also skipped the military revolutions of Prince Maurice of Orange-Nassau (before Adolphus) and of Oliver Cromwell (after Adolphus), which can all be seen as redefining European army composition (essentially more mobile units, combined arms, greater emphasis on increasingly effective firepower) in the span of about 60 years. They can be seen as one continuous development on the by then outdated Spanish tercios system. These allowed European armies to punch way above their weight and colonise much of the world.
Huegenots is pronounced hyew-ge-knows
A t at the end of a French word is typically silent
Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I'm using the common American pronunciation of Huguenot, with apologies to French speakers! On Navarre, I stand corrected.
Gustav II Adolf was lutheran, not calvinist. Calvinism was banned togheter with roman catolicism in 1593
Sweden wanted to expand to Pomerania. How can you say gustavs motive was only religion?
Sandouras Agreed. There is always more to be said. Thanks for the good feedback!
Not sure I said that, exactly, but I certainly grant that history is never so neat, nor motives so tidy. Thanks for the feedback!
There are always multiple motives for any actions performed. Trying to identify them completely, mostly becomes speculation.
Now, if you go to war and you put your own life into 50% survival chance/risk, the motives are more than just som economical or territorial gains.
There was also the concern that if the Catholic league got control over the north german coastline they could start to build ships to challenge swedish control of the Baltic Sea.
Thx
GOTT MIT UNS!
I understand this speech was meant to pay respects to Gustavus Adolphus and the Protestant cause, but it was pretentious in that it cherry-picked events to make Catholics look like the bad guys and Protestant like the good guys. Although politically I do tend to side with the Protestants in this conflict, both parts commited abherrant atrocities against humanity. Regardless of where you want to put the focus of your speech, painting a story as black and white is not only wrong, but actually promotes the dangerous process thought of "us, the good" and "them, the evil".
This being said, I do agree he was a great king and one of the few who showed some concerns for the wellbeing of the population.
Well said!
As black and white as the Anglosphere against Hitler.
Napoleon admired Wallenstein the Duke of Friedland and credited Wallenstein's logistical and tactical decisions. Of course, I'm a little biased.
Gustavus Adolphus is buried in Riddarholmskyrkan in Stockholm.
Sorry, but this lecture got lots of incorrect information about the Thirtyyearswar. It's like always: the bad guys were not as bad and the good guys were not so good.
The king of France's renouncing of Protestantism might explain why Cardinal Richelieu sided with the Protestants in the 30 years war.
The 30 Years war reminds me of the 30th book Amos and the 8 cities to be burnt by fire. Also 1Samuel 30 when the Amalekites had kidnapped David and his men's wives captive.
if ever there was a bare- bones basic description of the 30 years war, this would be it
Wouldn't exactly call Ferdinand's actions in 1620 a brutal assault on Protestantism. Bohemian nobles started the rebellion and Count Mansfeld's unruly band of mercenaries were the ones plundering south Bohemia, while Bethlen's violent band of Hungarians slaughtered their way across Upper Hungary and into Austria to the gates of Vienna itself. Later, the Upper Austrian Peasant Rebellion (that wiped out Protestant communities) was crushed by Bavarians, since Ferdinand had been forced to give the place away to Maximilian as war cost collateral. The emperor's preferred policy was not to wipe out Protestant communities by the sword, but to exile their landholders and steal their land. It was a clerical land confiscation which followed Imperial armies everywhere.
@@hannibalcaesar3 Thanks for the perspective!
Today (October 25) is the 511th birthday of Renée of France; Duchess of Ferrara
A remarkable woman, and strong supporter of the Huguenots.
It is not Navarray.... The last vowel, an -e, is silent, like in "like", "love", glove, etc.
Thank you. That has been pointed out to me several times. My apologies.
Gustav the great
Not many kings have fought alongside their men in battle. The one giving the order shall fight it, and not sit and smoke cigars as all the leaders do, while the soldiers die. The worst thing is in modern times, soldiers die for some greedy politicans who are not ready to give their lives for something they have ordered. Sure some will say, if the king or leader die the empire will, but thats bullshit. If you give the order, you shall be ready to die as all the men you are sending out to fight it. So all the modern soldiers that fight today for bullshit greedy politicans, should do some hard thinking, but propaganda have fucked you all. But tbh the only country that wages war today are USA and Israel, they are the modern day Rome. Thousands of children die each day due to their sanctions agaisnt different countries. But the people are brainwashed in defending their country. Defending what? US builds military bases all over the world, and closer and closer to Russia and Iran. And when Russia did send some nuclear planes to south America a year ago, US went bananas. So its ok for you to build near Russia and not otherr vise? Evil nation of satan, if you belive Jesus will save you, think about all the children that die each day thanks to your goverment. And no im not speaking about the normal american people as they are great and lovely people, just way too brainwashed. problem is your evil goverment. All these millions of immigrants in Europe are here for a reason, thanks to you. Europeans will aid Russia over US. Well the left wont, but no one likes them anyway. And media is left winged, so all you hear about europeans love americans , well brainwashing. Not many people like US actually, but most of us know its the goverment and not the people. US pay big money to the media in Europe to be anti Russian and pro American, but we are smarter and we see through that bullshit. As i said leftish dont, but no one cares about them. Be as angry as you want and call me names and let that ego out, buty this is pure facts.
I think to most Sweds nowdays concider Gustav II Adolf's grandfather Gustav Vasa or Gustav I to be the most famous swedish king in history.
He's one could say the swedish version of Henry VIII.
Gustav Vasa is like Henrik VII and Gustav II Adolf is like Henrik V i would say.
I'd say Gustav Vasa, Gustav Adolf II, Charles X and Charles XII are the most renowned kings of Sweden.
He sound like a pretty good pick for the best king of the Swedes.
So I was watching this for the historical aspect and was not at all ready for his manic raving at the end. It sort of came out of nowhere and really ruined the whole thing.
Fredrik Emilsson yeah me too. But I guess it was a religious war so it kinda fits. I think...
Another great lecture; especially the lesson at the end. Strange that this particular lecture prompted such struggle and confusion in the comment section with regards to understanding the perspective of this series. What's that old saying... something about a rock and a yelping dog? ;-)
Thanks. I've frankly been astonished at the amount of interest, both positive and negative, that his presentation incited!
I thought it was Habsburg not Hapsburg.
It can be spelled either way. Thanks!
***** That is good to know. Enjoyed the video by the way.
not if you have some idea of the german tongue
gustav is my hero
August Blomberg Ehm, why? He won once, lost once and died in the third battle. He never showed amazing tactical skill or anything. I am Swedish and even I think he is highly overrated.
Won once? You even know anything about the guy? He was a tactical genius!. Even if you are a swede, i see you dont know anything about you own history. Seems that you talk more about your own feelings and thoughts.
@@goran2268 FAN OCKSÅ JAG ÄR UPPTÄCKT, KOD LUTHER KOD LUTHER #Påve4Laif
@@gustavusadolphus4103 your mom
is this a history lesson or theology?
I would say both... I think it's hard to get past theology in history, when theology was a large part of history until (as taught here) the end of the Thirty-Years War in 1648 which marked the last major 'religous' war in Europe, with the peace of Westphalia. Also this was part of the reformation, which was all about religon.
***** As Christian Lolarga mentions religion played a huge role in Europe at the time, the war was started on religious grounds after all.
People were a lot more religious at the time. Religion played a huge part in the military as well. In Swedish military books from the time one can read a lot about religion. For example one imporant book tells that "The bullet doesn't hit the man" which meaned that there was no reason to try and avoid bullets or cannonballs since it was God that decided if you would be hit or not. And God would only let the sinners be hit. This created a very strong moral in the Swedish military which was partially a reason for the Swedish successes in the Thirty Years War and the Great Northern War as well where Charles XII won battles against even worse odds than Gustavus Adolphus did in this war.
False consciousness is a powerful thing....
One of the best lectures I have ever listened to (all series). Really clarifying and give a bigger picture of the history intersected and overlapped by christian matters in detail person scale as well as countries.
Unfortunately, I must say, some key Reformation and political plots concerned Poland are omitted (presumably due to lack of time).
Here are some notions:
In the XVI and XVII century that was almost a key country for the Eastern Europe. It was a big and quite rich (for the time) country. In XVI cent. almost 1/3 of nobility was Calvinists. Calvinists churches spreat not only in Poland but also in Great Duchy Lithuany reaching Belorussian, Ukrainian and Russian lands. Poland was the only country where there was peace and all confessions could coexist. Poland gave shelter for many exiles (Anabaptists, Moravians, Arians, Jews).
John Lasco was Polish. King Sisigmund II August was very close to introduce National Church. His wife was a Calvinist, a sister of the greatest nobleman in Great Duchy Radzivill who sposnsored and protected whole Calvinist church in this vast land. The whole Senate was Calvinist at this time. The peak of the Polish Reformation was in 1573-The Warsaw Confederation was signed , - was an important development in the history of Poland and Lithuania that extended religious tolerance to nobility and free persons within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[1] is considered the formal beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in fact is the first such document in Europe. While it did not prevent all conflict based on religion, it did make the Commonwealth a much safer and more tolerant place than most of contemporaneous Europe, especially during the subsequent Thirty Years' War. (wikipedia).
After the mysterious death of the Sisigmund the next kin was Henry III himself. "the Polish delegation asked Henry to take an oath, at Notre Dame Cathedral, to "respect traditional Polish liberties and the law on religious freedom that had been passed during the interregnum".[15] As a conditions to his election, he was compelled to sign the Pacta conventa and the Henrician Articles, pledging religious tolerance in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[16] Henry chafed at the restrictions on monarchic power under the Polish-Lithuanian political system of "Golden Liberty". (wikipedia)
Just to mention that Poland at that time was quite modern in some respects: In many aspects, Polish culture had a positive influence on France. At Wawel, the French were introduced to new technologies of septic facilities, in which litter (excrement) was taken outside the castle walls.[19] On returning to France, Henry ordered the construction of such facilities at the Louvre and other palaces.[19] Other inventions introduced to the French by the Polish included a bath with regulated hot and cold water, as well as forks. Henri III (1551-1589) [...] he is widely credited for having introduced the fork into France.[wikipedia)
+Rafal Prokopiuk Thank you for such extraordinary and helpful detail!
This is kind of ridiculous. Everyone everywhere believed that God was on their side back then. Strong convictions can win battles, but smart tactics will also help.
I thought gustavus said I was the king of sweden
And Navarre is pronounced na-varr, not na-va-ray
Really???
The time of year and the weather destroyed the armada of 1588.
The slave owner Francis Drake has no effective input.
Drake had no effective input into the 'Armada' failing in English Channel currents as the slave owner Abram had no part in ending the sacrifice of the eldest son in ancient Hebrew culture, the slave owner Moses had no part in the so-called 'Exodus', or the slave owners Washington and Jefferson (serial slave rapist!) had no part in the American Colonial Revolution.
Great lecture and many thanks...but hell fire man your accent murders European words.
Hugenot..... try Huwgenoh ...there is no hard T at the end.
Navarre ..... its pronounced again with soft sounds... Navahr
If you get a chance watch La Reigne Margot.... I think you will like it and it will help with the French words.
still....minor jinks in the ear. Its a great lecture all the same.
I am very grateful for your helpful critique. Thanks!
Bruce Im really sorry if my criticism came across as petty narks....it wasnt intended that way at all. Your students are damn lucky to have you and I envy them....online lectures are great but you dont get the after lecture interaction. The accent thing is just a minor jink...After all I say Tomatoe and all that ;-) As someone once said...two nations separated by a common language.
As well as La Reigne Margot (which is based on the Victor Hugo novel and so is only semi historical) you could look out for "Henry of Navarre" (aka Henry 4th) which is more of a historical biography film. Both well worth watching if only to see a little covered part of history on film.
PS: love you rocking that Richelieu costume.
Thanks again!
In French one rarely pronounces the trailing consonant
When you find an Englishman correcting your French you know you need to try harder.
God Save The King!
Excellent history. Well presented also. I understand it was not really thirty years but stop and go and someone later scored it thus. It does seem to be Gods providence to save the true faith or rather innocent people and punish the bad.
Sweden was to rise, alongside the protestant nations, in intellect, morality, wealth, prestige and the cAtholic ones to become just secondary ghettos of civilization.
This was great before it become a Jesuit advert.
Yeah, that kinda killed it for me, because then I realised it was biased.
ArkhanNightman it was quite unbiased. But now you've mentioned that I'm gonna need another source.
"Gustavus Adolphus crossed the Baltic, seized the island of Rügen, and carried his arms over the Vistula, the Rhine and the Danube. He fought two battles. Victorious on the field of Leipzig, he also won the battle of Lützen, where he was killed."
"Such a short military career has bequathed great memories - his great boldness, rapid movements, order, and the intrepidness of the troops. He was animated by the same principles that guided Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar... In eighteen months he won one battle, lost another and was killed in a third. His reputation was certainly acquired cheaply... Tilly and Wallenstein were better generals. No masterly movement on his part is recorded; he abandoned Bavaria because of the maneuvers of Tilly, who understood how to force him out of the country, and he let Magdeburg fall before his very eyes. That's a neat reputation for you!"
Napoleon Bonaparte, in private correspondence with his brother Joseph in August 1806.
I think Napoleon sums it up quite nicely. Gustav Adolph might have been a man of character, as a military commander he seems to be overestimated.
I don't want to be a smart ass but you're wrong, and so was Napoleon. Gustavus Adolphus fought one war with Denmark, three wars with Poland-Lithuania and one with Russia before he got involved in the 30 years war. From experience of those wars he reformed his military, and created the foundation of our modern military system. Praises or not from Napoleon are irrelevant, stick to facts.
Jelubaful Thanks! Appreciate the feedback.
Jelubaful Napoleon gives brief yet factual information in his letter regarding the conduct of Gustavus Adolphus in the thirty years war which form the basis of his judgement regarding the reputation of Gustavus Adolphus as a general. You have not adressed any of them.
Stating the swedish king had conducted wars prior to the thirty years war tells us nothing of his abilities as a general. Oddly you do not defend said abilities by providing concrete information or examples.
I have not commented on the army reforms, nor has Napoleon mentioned anything about the reforms in his letter. That being said, I think your claim about the importance of Gustavus' reforms (it being the foundation of our modern military system) is a considerable overestimation. It builds on the reforms of Maurice of Nassau and as such is another step in the evolution of warfare over the ages.
Epicurus78 The very same could be said about Napoleon. Who is quoted correcting Charles XII on how to win a Russian campaign, only to make the same mistakes.
Overestimated or not, the impact these leaders had on the continent were "great". Gustavus Adolphus modern army with innovations like the Swedish salvo, standardization of the light musket and a new offensive artillery made critical history.
Even if in reality they were light adjustments and the man a modest general.
The glorification of history, especially of leaders who command or fight themselves are often given more space. Thus the higher reputation despite the results. Military turning points are often given the same treatment.
In the case of Adolphus, his short military campaign in Germany overshadows his legacy for northern Europe and Sweden in particular.
tyskbulle
Napoleon once said that "One has a certain time for war", inferring that as one aged, his abilities might decline. Even though he doubtlessly made this comment without thinking of himself we can all agree in retrospect that it certainly applies to him. By 1812 his health was severely weakened due to his lifestyle and his clarity of vision obscured by a misplaced sense of destiny and an obsession with his feud with Great Brittain.
Even so, Gustavus Adolphus in my view certainly does not measure up against the corsican as a general. It is only because I disagree with the perception that GA was a great commander that I have made my comment, not because of his army reforms (which were inflated by the previous commentator) or his political legacy.
Breitenfeld Schwedisch Saxony Forces 36000- 40000 men and 60 guns versus 32000 men and 30 guns of the Katholic Liga.Sir, you really create your own history. Please check your numbers before blabla.
The captured cannons you mention were turned against the Catholic forces on that flank. At roughly the same time, the Swedish artillery began its own bombardment from the opposite direction. The battle lasted for some time after these events, but the Catholics were unable to maintain their lines and were killed or captured. Since Wallenstein is being mentioned here, it is worth noting that he was not the commander at this battle.
Well, you can subtract the Saxony forces as they almost immediately fled the field.
Fo people actually take this guy seriously ?
GOD! Can this guy pronounce anything right? Navarre... is silent final E. American scholars... always so not well-rounded up
American? Please, do not blame the academia of two continents for the failure of the U.S. educational system to teach about other cultures, including at the advanced collegiate level.
the ending of this lecture illustrates the hideousness of dogmatic faith and gives a warning of the danger of theocracy. i am thoroughly disgusted! this is one of the worse videos i have come across
+Daily McHugher ...and who might you be to say this?
well we just really dont care what you think..gotta be a leftwing libtard
@Donnoha , he is who he is, who are you to quUestion his right to an opinion?