Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Why did the Scots fight? What can the Munro account tell us about…
Why did the Scots fight? What can the Munro account tell us about motivation [and learning] in mercenary armies in the 30 years war?
Themes
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What does Robert Munro reveal about the religious rhetoric and religious practice in the 30 years war?
-
Sources
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tallett - Soldiers in Western Europe 1500-1790 in Fighting for a Living A Comparative Study of Military Labour - 2014
Parrott - Strategy and Tactics in the Thirty Years War in Rogers The Military Revolution Debate - 1985
Parker - The Military Revolution 1550-1560 - A myth? in Rogers, C. J. (1995). The military revolution debate : Readings on the military transformation of early modern europe.
Miller - The Scottish mercenary as a migrant labourer in Europe, 1550-1650 in Fighting for a Living A Comparative Study of Military Labour- 2014
-
-
-
-
Mortimer - War by Contract Credit and Contribution in Early Modern Military History, 1450–1815 -
-
-
-
Lockhart - Religion and Princely Liberties: Denmark's Intervention in the Thirty Years War, 1618-
1625 - 1995 Demonstrates the importance of the threat of Catholicism and Hapburg centralisation to Christian. Makes this more central to his involvement in the wars
Mortimer Individual Experience and Perception of the Thirty Years War in Eyewitness Personal Accounts
Thoughts
-
-
Religion - dismissed as a reason for state intervention by Denmark and Portugal but yet important for Munro. Was it a factor in persuading and recruiting mercenary commanders? Scots esp.
-
-
-
Why was religion important? It was not important for GA in dynastic terms but it was used as a tool? It was important for Munro - his Protestantism is a theme throughout. Was he genuinely motivated? Did GA recognise that religious motivation was a part of vertue and therefore if that quality was encouraged by religious motivation he was happy for it to be exercised?
-
Sweden was Lutheran not Calvinist. The two were NOT the same and Roberts evidence that Sweden was 'pure' Lutheran - sense of what is not acceptable in society was acceptable in mercenary forces
Munro himself fails to find anyone to cross sides even though use of prisoners in forces was a recognised phenomenon and spoil of war (for example the unknown German soldier. By privilaging religion did Munro constrain the capability of the Swedish force (in a small way)
The whole theme of confessionalism in the armies of the 30 years war is very hard to find scholarship, Its almost as if historians have seen through religion as a motivating force but this begs the question of why it appears so prominently in contemporary accounts
Wilson has a subtle argument for the importance of religion which de-emphasises it by comparison to Schiller. BUT does he take it too far - NB justification vs motivation is a good point. Propaganda. But claims that forces were not confessionalised? Is that actually right? Says that eyewitness accounts rarely mention religion (but they rarely mention anything very much? ) Or rather is it borne out? Lockhart claims that religion is more important in the case of Denmark (Christian). NB statement about the 8 clauses at Westphalia (yes they demonstrate what exactly?)
Even famous eyewitness accounts are quite limited. Munros is exceptionally detailed. (NB the unknown soldier subsequently identified as Peter Hagendorf)
-