At the Parting of the Ways 121The ultimate constraint on Wallenstein’s freedom of action was
political, as for all his supposed power he had surprisingly little influ-
ence on Imperial policy. As long as it was a matter of confronting
opponents with strong armies who had invaded the Empire this made
little difference, as the policy was necessarily survival and survival was
essentially an operational matter for the commanding general. It was in
this phase of the war that the impression of Wallenstein as all-powerful
developed, but the image lingered on long after the defeat of Christian
of Denmark had changed the situation, following which the realities
gradually reasserted themselves.
The image had also been fostered by the considerable latitude avail-
able to a general at this time, particularly one with as wide a command
as Wallenstein. Even in the modern era politicians have had perforce
to leave much of the conduct of hostilities to the generals, and this
was much more the case when a despatch from the front in northern
Germany could easily take a week to a fortnight to reach the court in
Prague or Vienna, with a reply taking at least as long. Naturally the com-
manders, Wallenstein included, exploited this, sending back regretful
notes pointing out that the situation had changed, the operational real-
ities were not fully appreciated at court, the number of men available
was insufficient for the proposed action, and a dozen other variants of
a politely dressed-up refusal. Sometimes the court attempted to redress
this balance by sending their own envoy, even an Imperial councillor,
to assess the situation on the spot. These gentlemen, though, travelled
at a more leisurely pace than military despatch riders, so that there
was even more scope for the situation to have changed, and not infre-
quently they ended up as advocates for the general and his strategy back
at court rather than vice versa. Hence Wallenstein enjoyed a high level
of operational autonomy, particularly while he was still seen as being
the proprietor of the army he had financed and recruited, and which he
was sustaining largely independently of Imperial funds.
Nevertheless he was not an Imperial councillor, still less the emperor’s
principal adviser, and indeed his personal audiences with Ferdinand
were increasingly rare after he ceased visiting Vienna, although they
did occur from time to time in Prague. He kept his own representa-
tive at court, but in the main his communication with the emperor
was in writing and principally concerned with military matters.
Wallenstein was simply not consulted during the preparation of the
Edict of Restitution,^24 nor in any meaningful way about the develop-
ing entanglement in Italy over Mantua. Hence he was no more than
a disapproving voice on the periphery of the most important events