Von Mercy was one of the most interesting generals of the Thirty Years' War, General of the Catholic League, he destroyed two French armies, the First in tuttlingen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tuttlingen) in 1643 (Defeat later covered up by the French ) against rantzau And in 1645 in herbsthausen against turenne, There's also the battle of freiburg Where mercy with inflicted heavy damage on turenne And conde, Mercy died in defeat against the French at the Second Battle of Nordlingen When leading a counterattack against the retreating French Including breaking the enghien wing, but Mercy was caught by a bullet, Now let's say mercy survives And your counterattack breaks the French army, how would that change the end of the Thirty Years' War and what would his military career be like after it (He was in the service of Bavaria)?
WI: Von mercy survives And won the Second battle of nordlingen.
- Thread starter Math
- Start date
Well it would help the Bavarians, though in the near term French gains were so modest after the battle that I don't think it changes much in '45. Maybe their position is strengthened and down the line the Truce of Ulm is avoided and they remain active in the campaign season in '47 for example. But all that means is that Turenne slugs it out with Mercy in southern Germany rather than trying to bring the army around towards the Netherlands (when it mutinied). So the situation in the Netherlands isn't changed and the outcome in southern Germany probably doesn't change much either.
So ultimately I don't know how much it actually changes the course of the war. By the end of '45 there were relatively few combatants left in Germany. The Welfs had made peace with the Emperor at Goslar and then Saxony was forced into neutrality after second Breitenfeld. So really the only German state left fighting on Sweden's side was Hesse-Cassel. While Bavaria was one of the few left on the Imperial side. The Swedes had already invaded Silesia and Moravia while the French had already taken the Palatinate.
The campaigns in '46 and '47 were not really productive. Negotiations were well underway in Munster and Osnabruck. Probably peace could have been agreed earlier than '48 except they failed to agree to a truce before the peace conference began so negotiations were conducted in tandem with military campaigns with each side reticent to make peace because they hoped that another campaign season would bring some victory on the battlefield that could improve their negotiating position. But that never happened and neither side suffered a serious reversal. I think mainly because all the sides were just too exhausted by that point to really accomplish anything.
I guess if Mercy is still around and leading a stronger Bavarian army then maybe the final defeats in '48 could be avoided and the Swedes are prevented from taking Prague. That has a big effect on Prague, obviously, and diminishes the loot that could be seized and taken back to Sweden but outside of that I doubt it significantly changes the terms of the peace settlement in Westphalia. Maybe the final Treaty of Osnabruck has a smaller indemnity due to Sweden or maybe the French don't get the same concessions concerning Alsace (the rights to the 'landgraviates of upper and lower Alsace'). I don't know.
As for Mercy, after the war I could see him going into Spanish service if France and Spain continue fighting, which is probably. Mercy was actually a Lorrainer and Lorraine or at least the Lorrainer army under Charles IV is still fighting France alongside the Spanish. Spain would probably love to bring over an accomplished commander from Germany with connections to Lorraine. So perhaps could be the big effect. Mercy fighting alongside Conde during the Fronde could be very interesting.
So ultimately I don't know how much it actually changes the course of the war. By the end of '45 there were relatively few combatants left in Germany. The Welfs had made peace with the Emperor at Goslar and then Saxony was forced into neutrality after second Breitenfeld. So really the only German state left fighting on Sweden's side was Hesse-Cassel. While Bavaria was one of the few left on the Imperial side. The Swedes had already invaded Silesia and Moravia while the French had already taken the Palatinate.
The campaigns in '46 and '47 were not really productive. Negotiations were well underway in Munster and Osnabruck. Probably peace could have been agreed earlier than '48 except they failed to agree to a truce before the peace conference began so negotiations were conducted in tandem with military campaigns with each side reticent to make peace because they hoped that another campaign season would bring some victory on the battlefield that could improve their negotiating position. But that never happened and neither side suffered a serious reversal. I think mainly because all the sides were just too exhausted by that point to really accomplish anything.
I guess if Mercy is still around and leading a stronger Bavarian army then maybe the final defeats in '48 could be avoided and the Swedes are prevented from taking Prague. That has a big effect on Prague, obviously, and diminishes the loot that could be seized and taken back to Sweden but outside of that I doubt it significantly changes the terms of the peace settlement in Westphalia. Maybe the final Treaty of Osnabruck has a smaller indemnity due to Sweden or maybe the French don't get the same concessions concerning Alsace (the rights to the 'landgraviates of upper and lower Alsace'). I don't know.
As for Mercy, after the war I could see him going into Spanish service if France and Spain continue fighting, which is probably. Mercy was actually a Lorrainer and Lorraine or at least the Lorrainer army under Charles IV is still fighting France alongside the Spanish. Spain would probably love to bring over an accomplished commander from Germany with connections to Lorraine. So perhaps could be the big effect. Mercy fighting alongside Conde during the Fronde could be very interesting.
How do you think mercy would fare against Turenne in southern Germany?, he demonstrated very well against Turenne and Conde, At Freiburg he was outnumbered and inflicted considerable damage on conde and Turenne On Wikipedia the estimate was 8 thousand casualties out of 16 thousand French men, in herbsthausen He annihilated Turenne's army, despite Mercy numerical superiority in this battle he was without many of his elite cavalry who were lost at Jankau Led by Von werth (Which makes one wonder what it would be like if the Imperials hadn't lost at Jankau and Mercy's army was bigger Without the losses in jankau).
Last edited:
I'm not sure. But its probably safe to say that he would fair better than anyone who succeeded him. Geleen wasn't terrible but I don't think he was as capable as Mercy plus Mercy worked well with Von Werth where as Von Werth resented Geleen being put in charge after Mercy and then came into conflict with Maximilian over the Truce of Ulm which he was he was also against. But really the issue of command was probably a bigger problem on the Austrian side. Gallas was a drunk, Leopold Wilhelm was a mediocre nepo-baby, Hatzfeldt I think had bad luck but I've seen it argued that he was a bad commander. Piccolomini could have been good but he was so frustrated he left to serve Spain in the Netherlands. Where as against the Austrians the Swedes had Baner and then Torstensson and Wrangel.
As for Jankau, yes, that was major defeat for Austria but it didn't break them. The Imperials had a remarkable resilience and were always able to at least raise enough troops to hold on for another season. And the Swedes didn't have the strength to deal a death blow in the immediate aftermath of the battle. I do still think Jankau going the other way would have been impactful but that's generally true the earlier you go. The Imperials had a terrible campaign in '44 under Gallas in which he lost most of his army withdrawing from Holstein back towards Bohemia which contributed to the loss at Jankau the following spring. And before that there was the successful Swedish campaign in '42 that resulted in the capture of Silesia and Olmutz in Moravia before culminating in Second Breitenfeld. Had that gone differently Saxony would have remained in the war and things could have gone very differently.
I think Kempen at the beginning of '42 is also important. It could have easily gone the other way if Lamboy wasn't so incompetent and had waited for Hatzfeldt's reinforcements. And if Guebriant was beaten there the French army of Germany with its old core Weimerian force could have disintegrated leaving Hesse-Cassel and Breisach vulnerable (though likely it would have been one or the other). At the very least the French would not have been able to effectively threaten Bavaria allowing the Bavarians to help repel the Swedish invasion of Silesia. While Lamboy, with his army intact, could have struck against France to take some of the pressure off the Spanish in the Netherlands.
So IMHO '42, maybe '44 is the latest you could swing a single battle to change the course of the war. Kempen in early '42, Second Breitenfeld in late '42, maybe have Gallas show up in time to bombard the Swedish fleet when it was briefly trapped in Kiel in '44. Or if you're looking for a 'single bullet' scenario, the Battle of La Marfee in '41. If Soissons did not die he could have launched a very serious rebellion in France that could have undermined the French war effort against Spain. Personally I think Soissons' rebellion of the 'Princes of the Peace' was the most serious threat to either Richelieu or Mazarin until the Fronde.