Végzetes gyõzelem (Lützen, 1632. november 16.)
Fatal victory (Lützen, November 16, 1632)

Summary/Abstract: The Thirty Years' War was one of the darkest periods in the history of mankind. This long period saw lootings, pillagings, cruelties, murders, massacres that decimated the population of the German states. And all that on a scale that is rarely characteristic of wartime conditions. How could this happen, what were the direct causes? The answer might be given through the examination of the art of war of the age, and the discovery of the contradictions between the quality of the opposing military forces and the political goals envisaged. Maintaining an army of merceneries for a lengthened period of time was an impossible task for the European states of those days. It caused problems of logistics and supplies in the protracted wars, which, in turn, significantly affected discipline and the solutions of problems. In tactics the simplest possible solutions had to be attempted, first of all to increase the moral cohesion of masses. It was impossible to maintain discipline among hungry and unprovided troops. This caused all the tragedies that characterised that war. Looking for solutions already started during the hostilities, of course. Various ideas, solutions were put forward to maintain provisions, do develop discipline and more effective warfare. Sweden's Gustavus II Adolphus was certainly the most successful of these innovators. The Swedish army under his command appeared in the theatre of war in a novel organization, and it was also complemented according to partially different principles. The preparedness, discipline and morale of the soldiers made possible strategics and tactics that brought significant successes for the Protestant alliance. Their efficiency appeared most obviously in the battles of Breitenfeld and Lützen. The essay analyses the Swedish army and its leadership through the battle of Lützen, attempting to sum up the most important strategic innovations that would be formulated into decisive principles a few decades later. Not wishing to introduce new results concerning the course of the battle, the author merely wanted to point out certain aspects that made this battle one of utmost importance in military history even if it did not affect the course of the war in a decisive way.

• Details
• Contents