The Battle of Lützen 1632 Hour By Hour | Thirty Years War

On a cold and foggy morning in November 1632 Gustavus Adolphus pushed his men to march hastily towards the imperial enemy lines. He knew that time was of the essence - imperial reinforcements were on their way and he needed to attack before their arrival. This cold and foggy morning marked the beginning of a battle that was going to become one of the most gruesome encounters of the Thirty Years’ War and a fatal moment in Gustavus’ career. Some military historians see the battle of Lützen as the starting point of a new tactical regime in Europe which heralded the growing deployment of musketeers in an increasingly linear fashion. Others disregard these tactical changes as insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This video will briefly situate the battle of Lützen in the war year of 1632 and analyze the combat action hour by hour with an emphasis on individual tactical units. This is how contemporary historiography recounts the battle of Breitenfeld.

Bibliographie:
Guthrie, W., Battle of the Thirty Years War, 2006.
Wilson, P., The Thirty Years War. Europe's Tragedy, 2010.
Wilson, P., Lützen 1632, 2018.

[SandRhomanHistory]

Also, let us know what you think about this format. Some seemed to like our other Video in this format on the battle of Breitenfeld a lot, but the statistics don't really reflect that.

[melthrandir]

I’m actually most impressed by the fact that Wallenstein managed to build up an army that could hold its own against the battle hardened Swedish veterans from hastily recruited bohemians. This and the fact that both sides held up morale in such a carnage show not only the skill of the generals but also of the officers making up the backbone of such armies.

[brianoneil]

"One of the most gruesome encounters of the Thirty Year War..."
That, that says a LOT.

[zivkosmrtic]

As a Croat i must say, we are the experts in stealing and running away

[miloslavpetras]

Please never stop making these, i could watch a 4 horu version and wouldnt become bored.

[Caradepato]

Its interesting how this battle has affected language - I still call a heavy fog a "Lützenfog", and my grandma always used to say "I know my Pappenheimer" whenever someone did something she expected.

[Moon_Dog_]

just wanted to say you are one of my favorite history YouTubers. I500s and 1600s warfare seems to be overlooked quite a bit so I appreciate you making these videos.

[Derna]

I totally agree with the analysis at the end of the video. Since so much of popular history focuses on battles where one side has a spectacular victory, Luetzen might appear to the casual viewer as an unimaginative slugfest, but if both armies are competently led and organized, then every clever maneuver and trap meets mediocre results, and the character strengths of the fighting force such as the spirit of the troops and the quality of the subordinate officers means the difference between survival and catastrophe. War is not all genius generals and elite troops. How every individual soldier decides to conduct himself on the battlefield determines what happens on the battlefield. Be it modern low-intensity conflict where a soldier has to make a split second decision whether the vehicle barreling down the road at him is going to explode and take out his whole squad or it's just an oblivious civilian, or be it 17th century warfare when a soldier was facing a wall of pikes stabbing at him- there's an officer somewhere around trying to figure out how to make chaos look like order but there is never an officer there whispering in his ear telling him what he should think or do.
There are two points on the late stage of the battle I think are relevant. I very much doubt Bernard's decision to renew the attack was simply a matter of ambition. Attempting to break contact with a strong enemy to the front and a difficult obstacle to the rear could have been a disaster, especially since retreating after difficult combat and the death of the king would instill a sense of defeat in the men and lead to panic. I also think that Wallenstein made the right call to retreat. If fighting continued the next morning, even (relatively) fresh troops might not have been enough to stem the tide of an enraged enemy fighting on deadly ground that had shown a willingness not only to fight but to fight to the last. Even if Wallenstein had managed to destroy the Protestant army, it would be so costly that men would not fight for him anymore and he would be politically finished.
The outcome in war can often be predicted more accurately by which side is more desperate to win than by which side has the material advantage. Commanders are officers who know where and when to place their troops to use their weapons to maximum effect. Leaders are officers who understand the motives of their troops and can get them to see their task to the end, but also understand the limits of their credibility in asking men to die. Wallenstein and King Gustav were very different men. One was the cynic's most beloved cynic, the other was the dreamer's most beloved dreamer, but they were both leaders who looked at their soldiers as human beings with their own needs and interests, and led on the basis that they were giving the men something they were willing to risk death for in exchange for their willingness to die.
King Gustav's advisor Oxenstierna thought rightly that wars did not begin and end based on hopes and dreams but based on the motives and concerns of rulers, realpolitik, the balance of power etc. However, King Gustav understood what Oxenstierna did not, that men will not die for the motives and concerns of rulers, that realpolitik isn't real on a battlefield, but the hopes and dreams of the soldiers who must decide to die in order for battles to be won are very real on a battlefield. While the enemy can't argue with a bullet to the face, first you have to decide it's worth taking one yourself in order to deliver it. Gustavus Adolphus isn't remembered to this day because of a few tactical innovations which were adopted so quickly by his opponents that it was a zero sum game. He's remembered because he was such an inspirational leader that his leadership survived him in death and affected the outcome of a battle, and therefore a war, and therefore the history of the world.
Luetzen is not remembered because it was a day's long slaughter that was tactically inconclusive. The battle demonstrated that the Protestant troops were now motivated to fight and die for their own cause, that they didn't see themselves as pawns in the power struggle between princes in which their religion was merely a political consideration for princes to use against each other and their subjects. By fighting so valiantly in such desperate circumstances, the common soldier of Gustav's army showed the Catholic princes that even if they could destroy or subjugate their rival Protestant princes, they would destroy themselves in the process. By preserving his own army, Wallenstein ensured that the Protestant side could not gain a quick victory and that destroying the Catholic side would require a war of attrition they could not win.
There would be no more wars of religion in Germany, and while religious suspicions and undertones of religion would persist in the struggles between the princes, the wholesale slaughter and persecution of the people based on their religion would end. In a word, both sides would have to come to terms with their inability to destroy the other, and mutual disgust would have to turn into grudging respect and eventually back into brotherhood. The Battle of Luetzen directly contributed to lasting religious harmony in Germany. It's a stark contrast with countries like the UK which never had a full blown war of religion and yet animosities have persisted to the point where there are still occasional brawls between atheists identifying as Protestants and atheists identifying as Catholics. It's patently absurd. Speaking from the perspective of a Protestant who grew up with a beloved aunt who was a Catholic nun, I am deeply disgusted by people LARPing the wars of religion and they should be ashamed of themselves, but I also understand the feeling of sympathizing with your team when you look back at yesteryear's disasters.
There are two moments in the Thirty Years War which are the most memorable images in the mind's eye, and they are closely related. The first is the Spanish pikeman standing in the last tercio at Rocroi, completely surrounded, helpless in the face of artillery but still defiant. The second is the Protestant soldier at Luetzen, covered in black powder soot, sweat and blood, but going back across the field of his fallen comrades to attack again against all odds for grief over the only leader who ever showed genuine concern for him. If you're Catholic, the Protestant soldier is an icon smasher, he would be your enemy. If you're Protestant, the Spanish pikeman is the enforcer of the Inquisition, he would be your enemy. But you can't help but see the genuine love in him, that he is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for what he believes in even if you believe he's wrong. And it makes no sense, the most disgusting human characteristic, that we butcher each other because we can't get along, displays the most noble human characteristic, that we're willing to give our own lives out of love for each other. And I suppose that's why we find stories of battle so interesting, even if we've seen war with our own eyes; that even within the driest, most apolitical tactical analysis we can see the full range of humanity good and evil, and try to understand it better without the stress of thinking about what we'll cut each other's throats over tomorrow.

[theonlylauri]

"Why do I hear boss music?"
-Gustavus Adolphus and Albrecht von Wallenstein, November 16th 1632

[homemadesocks]

You are one of the most underrated history channels in this platform

[kamilszadkowski]

This video is top-notch. Please keep them coming. The Pike & Shot era deserves more recognition. Any chances you'll cover the English Civil War or Time of Troubles in the future?

[loslobos]

I was the king of Sweden... that's gotta be one of the greatest last words in all of history.

[Ghonosyphlaids]

Hour by hour breakdown is an amazing format. Thanks for all the work you put in to these videos

[terrynewsome]

Sweds: For the king!!!
Imperials: ah s#$% here we go again.

[MadAtGasCar]

Damn man I’m impressed by how fast you make these long videos, amazing work.

[ctCaptRex]

This battle is one of my main examples of how artillery was used in this war in my bachelor thesis.

[shorewall]

These types of video are like an event for me. I'm so excited!

[AndyM_YYY]

This is a superb piece of work: you've given the right amount of emphasis to the strategic background for the battle and then used very effective graphics to make its course clear.

[shanemize]

Incredibly well done video! Graphics were really good, narration was easy to understand, and you took a complicated subject like the Thirty Years War and you had me from start to finish wrapped up in it. That's very impressive! Well done and God bless you and your team, my friend!

[sisyphus]

Hey algorithm,
Recommend this to others.
Shed the light of knowledge on people's minds.