Why is this guy considered so important with regard to the development of military doctrine?
>>574009
Is he?
4chan seems obsessed with him, other than that I dont really think that he is that relevant.
He basically invented modern warfare. Some would argue he along with the French revolution created the modern world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution
>>574009
He was basically one of the first to utilize a disciplined and drilled army (modeled after Maurice) to great success. He also basically was responsible for the resurgence of cavalry into warfare in west Europe.
So, he was a pretty cool guy.
He was a Protestant prince who won a few battles and then died heroically. Ignorant historians have attributed every military innovation of the 16th and 17th century to him, from volley fire, to arms blanche cavalry charges, to paper cartridges.
The only thing that you can really credit him with is the leather cannon, which was a more or less failed experiment, and in any case, not the first attempt at supporting infantry squadrons with small crew-served weapons.
>>574081
>He was basically one of the first to utilize a disciplined and drilled army (modeled after Maurice) to great success.
>He also basically was responsible for the resurgence of cavalry into warfare in west Europe.
No he wasn't.
>>574009
Napoleon studied his battles and liked him.
>>574009
Gustavus Adolphus threw a wrench in 1600s European thinking by having a regular standing army that was well-trained, regularly drilled, armed with fine weaponry and were paid on time.
He also redesigned his army to take advantage of newly acquired mobility that was afforded to him by the emerging innovation of gunpowder and modern firearms. While the European army model largely consisted of forming squares or, even older, lines of phalanxes several soldiers deep of mixed musketeers and pikemen, Adolphus formed whole regiments solely of musketeers.
He also adopted a new, lighter musket, thus eliminating the need for the gunner or an assistant to carry a forked pole to rest the firearm on.
He made paper cartridges standard in his army.
He also drilled his men in the concept of rolling volley fire.
This innovation was a regiment of musketeers, usually six lines deep that closed to three before engaging the enemy.
The first rank would kneel the second would crouch and the third rank would stand all firing simultaneously.
The rate of fire Adolphus was able to maintain on a battlefield surpassed other armies of the time largely because the Swedish king reduced the traditional European manual of arms from 160 movements for firing and reloading to 95.
Adolphus disregarded the big, cumbersome cannons favored by many leaders of his day and opted for lighter and maneuverable field-pieces that could be quickly moved to give fire where his infantry needed support at a particular time.
>>574933
good post
interesting reading on the subject here:
http://www.syler.com/Breitenfeld/infantry/MusketGenl.htm
![Firing_Brigade_of_3_squadrons[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/c705tz2.jpg "Firing_Brigade_of_3_squadrons[1].jpg")
>>574933
This is the kind of Gustavus mythology I have a problem with. Many of the things he is creditted with had been done for a long time, and the others are just things that the Swedes happened to do, not necessarily better or worse than what the Spanish, Dutch or Imperial armies were doing at the same time.
>Gustavus Adolphus threw a wrench in 1600s European thinking by having a regular standing army that was well-trained, regularly drilled, armed with fine weaponry and were paid on time.
It was never European thinking that armies should be poorly trained, rarely drilled, armed with poor weaponry and in arrears.
>While the European army model largely consisted of forming squares or, even older, lines of phalanxes several soldiers deep of mixed musketeers and pikemen, Adolphus formed whole regiments solely of musketeers.
Shot had been tactically detached from pike units for special operations and maneuvers for a hundred years before Adolphus entered the TYW.
>He also adopted a new, lighter musket, thus eliminating the need for the gunner or an assistant to carry a forked pole to rest the firearm on.
Muskets that were light enough that they didn't need a rest had been a thing for at least 30 years prior.
>He made paper cartridges standard in his army.
A cost-saving measure. Paper cartridges were cheaper than bandoleers, but not necessarily better.
>The first rank would kneel the second would crouch and the third rank would stand all firing simultaneously.
There have been many different kinds of volley fire implemented throughout the history of musketry. Two-rank volley fire had been used for decades before Adolphus. This is one of those "the Swedes happened to do it this way" things, not a revolutionary new tactic.
ctd.
>>574933
>The rate of fire Adolphus was able to maintain on a battlefield surpassed other armies of the time largely because the Swedish king reduced the traditional European manual of arms from 160 movements for firing and reloading to 95.
I assume you're referring to De Gheyn's manual. It did not have 160 movements, it had 117 illustrations. 32 for the pike, 42 for the caliver, and 43 for the musket. Since the illustrations show the musket being aimed, fired, loaded, and then aimed again, some of the illustrations are redundant.
>Adolphus disregarded the big, cumbersome cannons favored by many leaders of his day and opted for lighter and maneuverable field-pieces that could be quickly moved to give fire where his infantry needed support at a particular time.
He absolutely did not disregard "big, cumbersome cannons". He just happened to also have a lot of lighter cannons. Gustavus fought a 2-hour long-range artillery duel against Tilly at Breitenfield.
>>574081
>He was basically one of the first to utilize a disciplined and drilled army (modeled after Maurice) to great success.
What exactly did he do that was unique?
Sparta was a city of professional soldiers. They drilled, they were well disciplined and were using state of the art tactics for the time.
Is Gus' big footprint on history that he brought back a hellenic concept but gave his soldiers muskets?
>>575157
>being this autistic
c'mon man, read a book, or the wikipedia article on the man at least.
>>575180
I'm a lover on the run, I got no time for book learning.
Give me a history channel documentary narrated by R. Lee Emery and saturated in memes instead.
>>575189
> I got no time for book learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYGWF6qrts
>>574009
>military doctrine
>not Sun Tzu
Honestly this is the first time I've heard of this guy OP, seems kind of cool although
>>575072
says we didn't really do much new. Keeping in in mind for info
>>575447
Gustavus' significance, at least from my perspective, is that he upset the balance of power in the 30 Years' War and drastically altered the end result.
He managed to carve a swath across the HRE from Pomerania to Wurttemburg, and he galvanized the protestant powers into resistance just as the Catholics seemed like they were about to completely undo the reformation. Over the course of his campaign, he managed to defeat both of the Catholics' great generals (Tilly and Wallenstein).
At the time, he was being hailed as the next Alexander or Augustus. His impact on world history may not be what they're claiming in this thread, but without his intervention and incredible campaigning, the 30 Years War would not have ended like it did, and the course of European events since would have been drastically different.
As for the reforms that Gustavus is being credited with, the most significant reforms that made Sweden a regional power generally had more to do with procurement and organization, and it came before Gustavus took power.
>>575492
Noted. Appearing to be a pretty cool guy indeed
>>575609
Richard Brezinski doesn't.
>>575138
10/10 good answer
>>575609
no sven that was in your dream
>>575492
>he managed to defeat both of the Catholics' great generals (Tilly and Wallenstein)
He destroyed tilly, yeah. But not wallenstein.
He clashed with wallenstein more than once, didn't win at nürnber or at the alten vester, won at lützen for de cost of his own life
>>574009
>Why is this guy considered so important with regard to the development of military doctrine?
He took a bunch of concepts that have been appearing in warfare across Europe and molded them together into one package and it all clicked well together. Lots of parties realized the potential of more musketry/shock cavalry/insert an early modern warfare concept, and he took several of them and applied them. His input was not a revolution in warfare, but an important point in its gradual development.
>>576497
Lutzen was the victory I meant. I never said it didn't cost him his life or that Wallenstein didn't win every other engagement.
Hell, just being successful enough to force Ferdinand and the Liga to call Wallenstein back into service was pretty impressive.
>>574009
If I'm not mistaken, he was the first one to use artillery as a moving unit, he would position his cannons where it was needed the most
