4 Wallenstein
of a Christian emperor.’^3 In another paradox Wallenstein, the leading
Catholic general, became something of a posthumous hero on the
Protestant side.
The picture of Wallenstein presented by the propagandists and the
contemporary popular press had acquired the status of a ‘well-known
fact’ by the time that nineteenth-century historians began to search
out primary sources from the archives, and consequently they often
failed to draw the logical conclusions from their own researches.
Modern historians have sometimes still struggled to put the established
image out of their minds in interpreting the evidence, which although
voluminous overall can be scarce at critical points. Paradoxes remain.
One distinguished British historian of the Thirty Years War noted that
Wallenstein showed great judgement and discretion in his financial
affairs, but claimed that in military matters he trusted to the horo-
scopes of his officers rather than to their talents. Another stated that
where religion was concerned he was as calculating and pragmatic as
any modern business executive, but nevertheless this writer considered
that Wallenstein might well have entertained dreams of becoming king
of his native Bohemia. Both suggested that his efforts to negotiate a
peace settlement were only a cover, beneath which he was pursuing
his own interests, although without advancing any evidence to sup-
port this view. Terms such as ‘measureless ambition’, ‘egomania’ and
‘unscrupulousness’ have often been employed as though these qualities
were self-evident and well-established facts rather than requiring proof.
The concept of Wallenstein as obsessed with astrology is still a ‘well-
known fact’ in biographies and German popular opinion, although the
evidence for this has rarely been subjected to critical analysis. Historians
seem to have been content to identify what one called a ‘contradic-
tion between the hard-headed man of the world and the superstitious
idealist’, without enquiring whether such a paradox is psychologi-
cally or practically credible. Can a star-struck fantast really have been
the ‘organising genius’ or the ‘logistical genius’ the same historians
describe? Can he really have outmanoeuvred Gustavus Adolphus, the
leading general of the age, on the strength of horoscopes? Can he really
have been as loyal as his actions indicate, but as disloyal as the dreams
and schemes imputed to him imply?^4
This book sets out to resolve the enigma, and to do so upon the
basis of the evidence and without being unduly influenced – one way
or the other – by tradition. This is of course not the first attempt to
do so, and some recent German historiography provides a more bal-
anced view of Wallenstein and his career. However this book is also