What If The Peace of Westphalia Never Occurred?

The Actual History

The Peace of Westphalia refers to a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in the German regions of Osnabrück and Münster. These treaties ended the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), one of the most destructive conflicts in European history, as well as the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. What began as a religious conflict primarily within the Holy Roman Empire eventually expanded into a continental power struggle involving most major European powers.

The Thirty Years' War originated in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague, when Protestant nobles threw Catholic officials out of a castle window in Bohemia. This act of defiance against Habsburg authority ignited tensions that had been building since the Protestant Reformation a century earlier. The conflict quickly evolved from a religious dispute between Catholics and Protestants into a complex struggle over the balance of power in Europe, drawing in Denmark, Sweden, France, Spain, and numerous German states.

By the 1640s, the war had devastated Central Europe. An estimated one-third of Germany's population perished from combat, disease, and famine. Some regions lost up to two-thirds of their inhabitants. Cities were sacked, countryside ravaged, and economic activity severely disrupted. The human and material costs created enormous pressure to end the fighting.

Negotiations began in 1644 in the Westphalian cities of Münster and Osnabrück, selected because Münster was Catholic and Osnabrück was Protestant, allowing simultaneous talks. The peace process was unprecedented in scale and complexity, involving 109 delegations representing European powers large and small.

The resulting treaties—primarily the Treaty of Osnabrück and the Treaty of Münster—established several principles that would transform European politics:

Religious Tolerance: The treaties established the principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose realm, his religion"), allowing German princes to determine the religion of their territories while providing some protections for religious minorities.
Sovereignty: The treaties recognized the full sovereignty of the German states, granting them the right to conduct their own foreign policy independent of imperial authority. This severely weakened the Holy Roman Emperor's power.
Balance of Power: The settlements intentionally redistributed territories to prevent any single power from dominating Europe, establishing a more balanced international system.
Territorial Integrity: The treaties recognized the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

France and Sweden gained significant territories and influence, while the Habsburg powers—Spain and Austria—saw their ambitions checked. The Holy Roman Empire continued to exist but was effectively transformed into a loose confederation of largely independent states. The Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation were formally recognized as independent states.

The Peace of Westphalia is widely regarded as a watershed moment in diplomatic history, marking the birth of the modern international system based on sovereign states. The "Westphalian system," as it came to be known, established concepts of state sovereignty, legal equality between states, and the principle of non-intervention that remain foundational to international relations today. While these principles were not immediately or universally implemented, the Peace of Westphalia set the trajectory for the development of the modern state system that continues to shape global politics in the 21st century.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Peace of Westphalia never occurred? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the monumental peace negotiations of 1644-1648 collapsed without producing the treaties that fundamentally reshaped European politics and international relations.

Several plausible scenarios could have derailed the negotiations:

First, the death of a key negotiator might have shattered the delicate diplomatic balance. The sudden loss of French diplomat Abel Servien, Swedish representative Johan Adler Salvius, or Imperial plenipotentiary Maximilian von Trauttmansdorff at a critical juncture could have unraveled years of painstaking compromise. Historical negotiations of this complexity often hinged on personal relationships and the expertise of particular individuals.

Alternatively, a military victory by either the Habsburg forces or their opponents might have eliminated the "hurting stalemate" that motivated compromise. If Imperial General Ottavio Piccolomini had secured a decisive victory against French and Swedish forces in 1647, Emperor Ferdinand III might have withdrawn from negotiations to press his advantage. Conversely, if Swedish General Carl Gustaf Wrangel had achieved a breakthrough in Bavaria or Bohemia, Sweden might have demanded more concessions than the Habsburgs could accept.

Religious intransigence could also have torpedoed the peace process. The papal nuncio, Fabio Chigi (later Pope Alexander VII), strongly opposed concessions to Protestants. If Pope Innocent X had taken a harder line and threatened Catholic negotiators with excommunication for compromising on religious issues, Catholic powers might have balked at the settlements.

Perhaps most plausibly, France's complex domestic politics could have altered its diplomatic position. The Fronde rebellions, which historically erupted just as the treaties were being signed, might have begun earlier. If France's chief minister Cardinal Mazarin had been forced to recall the brilliant diplomat Count d'Avaux to handle domestic unrest, France's negotiating position would have weakened significantly. Spain, France's primary rival, might have seized this opportunity to demand terms unacceptable to French interests, causing France to withdraw from the negotiations.

In our alternate timeline, we'll explore a scenario where a combination of these factors—specifically, the premature death of Trauttmansdorff in early 1647, coupled with a Habsburg military success near Ulm that same year—led Emperor Ferdinand III to believe he could achieve more favorable terms through continued warfare. With the Imperial delegation hardening its position and withdrawing key concessions, the fragile consensus among the dozens of delegations collapsed by autumn 1647. The representatives departed Westphalia without signing the comprehensive peace treaties, and Europe remained locked in its devastating conflict.

Immediate Aftermath

Continuation of Hostilities (1648-1653)

In the absence of the Westphalian settlement, the Thirty Years' War did not end in 1648 but instead entered an even more destructive phase. The initial Habsburg military advantage that contributed to the collapse of negotiations proved short-lived. By mid-1648, Swedish forces under General Carl Gustaf Wrangel, reinforced by French troops, launched a devastating campaign into Bohemia and Austria. Meanwhile, French armies under Turenne and Condé pressed deeper into the Spanish Netherlands and Catalonia.

The war's continuation placed enormous strain on all belligerents' resources. Taxation reached crushing levels, particularly in the Habsburg territories where Emperor Ferdinand III struggled to finance his armies. Spain, already teetering on bankruptcy before 1648, declared its fourth financial default in November 1649, sending shockwaves through European financial markets. The Dutch seized this opportunity to secure more favorable terms in their ongoing conflict with Spain, effectively negotiating a separate peace by 1650—the only part of the historical Westphalian settlement to survive in this timeline.

Religious Consequences

Without the religious compromises established at Westphalia, the principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose realm, his religion") from the Peace of Augsburg remained the primary framework for religious affairs in the Holy Roman Empire. However, its practical implementation became increasingly untenable as population movements and conversions had created more religiously mixed territories.

The continued conflict saw renewed religious persecution across Central Europe. In Habsburg territories, the Counter-Reformation intensified with Cardinal Ernst Adalbert von Harrach overseeing forced conversions in Bohemia and Silesia. Protestant communities in these regions either converted, fled to Protestant states in northern Germany, or faced severe repression. Similarly, in areas controlled by Protestant powers, Catholic minorities experienced increasing discrimination.

The absence of Westphalian protections for religious minorities led to a significant population exodus from religiously mixed areas. Brandenburg-Prussia, historically a beneficiary of skilled Huguenot immigrants following the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685, received this influx nearly three decades earlier in this timeline, strengthening its economy while further depleting human capital in Catholic territories.

Political Fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire

Without the Westphalian recognition of the German princes' sovereignty, the constitutional status of the Holy Roman Empire remained ambiguous and contested. Emperor Ferdinand III attempted to reassert imperial authority, calling an Imperial Diet in Regensburg in 1651. However, the meeting collapsed when Protestant representatives walked out after the Emperor refused to address their religious grievances.

This failed Diet marked a critical moment in the Empire's disintegration. Several northern German states, led by Brandenburg and Saxony, formed the "Leipzig League" as a Protestant defensive alliance. In the south, Bavaria established closer ties with France, seeking protection against potential Habsburg aggression. The Empire continued to exist nominally, but functioned even less effectively than in our timeline, with imperial institutions like the Reichskammergericht (Imperial Chamber Court) becoming essentially inoperative by 1652.

Rise of Absolutism

The continuation of war accelerated the development of absolutist state structures. In France, the Fronde rebellions (1648-1653), which historically challenged royal authority, were crushed more decisively in this timeline. Cardinal Mazarin, desperate to maintain France's war effort, convinced the young Louis XIV to take extraordinary measures against the rebellious nobles and parlements. By 1653, Louis had centralized power more completely than in our timeline, establishing the template for his absolutist reign earlier.

Similar patterns emerged in other warring states. The demands of continued conflict required more efficient taxation, larger bureaucracies, and standing armies. In Sweden, Queen Christina found herself unable to demobilize the expensive military machine created by her father Gustavus Adolphus. Financial pressures drove her to convene the Riksdag more frequently, gradually shifting Sweden toward more parliamentary governance—a significant divergence from our timeline.

Diplomatic Revolution

The failure of Westphalia discredited the emerging diplomatic system of resident ambassadors and multilateral negotiations. States increasingly relied on secret bilateral agreements and dynastic marriages to secure alliances. Cardinal Mazarin orchestrated Louis XIV's marriage to a Spanish Habsburg princess in 1651, hoping to secure peace with Spain (though the conflict continued nonetheless).

The concept of a "balance of power," which historically emerged from Westphalia, developed more slowly and haphazardly. Without the precedent of major powers gathering to collectively reorganize European affairs, international relations remained more chaotic and unpredictable. The absence of recognized principles of sovereignty and non-intervention meant that internal rebellions frequently triggered external interventions, as neighboring powers exploited domestic weaknesses.

By 1653, exhaustion finally brought the major continental powers to the negotiating table again—not in Westphalia, but in Frankfurt. The resulting Treaty of Frankfurt (1654) in this alternate timeline ended the military conflict but achieved far less than the historical Peace of Westphalia, leaving many territorial and constitutional questions unresolved and setting the stage for continued instability in the decades to come.

Long-term Impact

The Transformation of the Holy Roman Empire (1654-1700)

Without the Westphalian settlement that historically diminished imperial power while preserving the Empire's structure, the Holy Roman Empire underwent a more radical transformation in this timeline. The Treaty of Frankfurt (1654) failed to resolve fundamental questions about imperial authority, leading to a period known to historians as the "German Fragmentation."

By the 1670s, the Empire had effectively split into three distinct blocs:

The Habsburg Core: Austria, Bohemia, and loyal Catholic states in southern Germany remained under effective Habsburg control, increasingly functioning as a unitary state rather than components of the Empire.
The Protestant Union: Northern German states led by Brandenburg-Prussia and Saxony formed a confederation with its own diet, court system, and mutual defense arrangements. This alliance established collective sovereignty decades before German unification occurred in our timeline.
The Rhenish Association: Western German states, caught between France and the Habsburg territories, formed a buffer zone under French protection. This region became a constant source of conflict, changing hands frequently in subsequent wars.

The imperial institutions—the Reichstag, imperial courts, and the electoral college—continued to exist nominally but lost practical relevance. The office of Holy Roman Emperor became largely ceremonial by 1680, though the Habsburgs maintained it for prestige. This accelerated fragmentation prevented the gradual evolution toward German nationalism that historically occurred, instead entrenching regional identities more deeply.

Religious Development and the European Enlightenment

The absence of the Westphalian religious settlement had profound implications for European religious development. Without established principles of tolerance, religious homogeneity became the dominant paradigm. Territories where rulers enforced religious conformity experienced less internal religious conflict but also suffered intellectually and economically from the exodus of religious minorities.

This extended period of religious persecution significantly altered the trajectory of the European Enlightenment. In our timeline, the Westphalian principles helped create conditions where religious pluralism could gradually expand. In this alternate history, the Enlightenment developed along two distinct paths:

In religiously rigid territories, the Enlightenment emerged as a more radical, anti-clerical movement. French philosophers like Pierre Bayle and Denis Diderot adopted more explicitly atheistic positions than in our timeline. The Catholic Church responded with stricter censorship and a stronger alliance with absolutist monarchs.
In regions where religious minorities found refuge (particularly the Netherlands, parts of the Protestant Union, and England), a different Enlightenment tradition emerged emphasizing religious tolerance and individual rights. These areas became intellectual powerhouses, attracting scientists, philosophers, and artists fleeing persecution elsewhere.

By the early 1700s, these divergent Enlightenment traditions created deeper ideological divisions across Europe than existed historically, setting the stage for more ideologically driven conflicts in the 18th century.

Colonial and Commercial Consequences

The continuation of European warfare beyond 1648 significantly altered colonial development. Spain, exhausted by the prolonged conflict, lost control of Portugal earlier (in 1649 rather than 1668 historically) and proved unable to maintain its monopoly over South American trade. The Dutch, having secured peace with Spain by 1650, redirected their naval resources toward colonial expansion, establishing stronger positions in Brazil, North America, and Indonesia than in our timeline.

France, despite its continental military commitments, pursued a more aggressive colonial policy under Louis XIV, seeking resources to fund its ongoing wars. French colonization efforts in North America extended beyond the St. Lawrence Valley earlier, with settlements established along the Mississippi by the 1670s—decades ahead of our timeline's development.

The most significant colonial divergence occurred in North America. Without the Peace of Westphalia occupying diplomatic attention in 1648, England resolved its civil war differently. Oliver Cromwell, facing less immediate foreign threat, consolidated the Commonwealth more effectively and implemented a more coherent colonial policy. English colonies in North America received greater direct investment and military protection, allowing more rapid expansion westward and northward at the expense of French and Native American territories.

These altered colonial patterns laid the groundwork for different global trade networks. The triangular trade developed more extensively around Dutch rather than English nodes, while Spanish dominance in the Pacific declined more rapidly. By 1700, global commerce had evolved along substantially different lines than in our timeline.

The Evolution of International Law and Relations

Perhaps the most profound long-term divergence stemmed from the absence of Westphalian principles in international relations. Historically, the Peace of Westphalia established concepts fundamental to modern international law: state sovereignty, legal equality of states, and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs. While these concepts weren't immediately implemented in practice, they provided normative foundations that gradually shaped international behavior.

In this alternate timeline, these concepts developed more unevenly and incompletely:

Sovereignty: Without Westphalia's clear articulation of sovereign equality, a hierarchical conception of international relations persisted longer. Major powers routinely claimed rights of intervention in smaller states' affairs based on religious, dynastic, or "balance of power" justifications.
Territorial Integrity: Borders remained more fluid and contested, with frequent revisions following conflicts. The concept of internationally recognized boundaries developed more slowly, contributing to endemic territorial disputes.
Diplomatic Norms: The elaborate diplomatic system that emerged from Westphalia—with resident ambassadors, diplomatic immunity, and protocol—evolved more haphazardly. Different regions developed incompatible diplomatic practices, complicating international negotiations.

These differences resulted in a more unstable international system plagued by frequent conflicts. The Wars of Religion effectively never ended but instead evolved into dynastic and territorial disputes with religious undertones. The absence of widely accepted principles for managing international disputes meant that conflicts escalated more quickly and resolved less definitively.

Modern Consequences (1800-2025)

The cumulative effect of these divergences profoundly altered modern history. The German lands, fragmented along different lines than in our timeline, underwent a different unification process. Rather than Prussia's gradual ascendancy culminating in German unification in 1871, the Protestant Union evolved into a north German federation by the mid-1700s, while Habsburg territories consolidated as a separate polity. This alternative organization of Central Europe prevented the formation of the German Empire as we know it and dramatically altered the balance of power in 19th-century Europe.

The development of democracy and liberalism followed different trajectories as well. Without Westphalian principles moderating religious conflict, the violent anticlericalism of the French Revolution occurred in more extreme form and spread more widely. Constitutional development in Europe emphasized different rights and institutional arrangements, with greater focus on religious questions and less on individual civil liberties.

By the 20th century, this alternate world featured nation-states with significantly different boundaries, national identities, and international norms. The world wars, if they occurred at all, would have involved different coalitions fighting over different issues. International organizations like the League of Nations and United Nations, which historically built upon Westphalian concepts, would have been structured around alternative principles—perhaps emphasizing collective security and intervention rights rather than sovereign equality and non-interference.

In 2025, this alternate world likely exhibits a more regionally fragmented international system with weaker global institutions. Religious identity potentially remains a more significant factor in international relations, with less developed norms protecting religious minorities. The principle of non-intervention, which even in our world is imperfectly observed, might be even less established, with great powers more openly exercising spheres of influence over smaller neighbors.

Perhaps most significantly, this world's legal and philosophical frameworks would lack the Westphalian foundation that shaped our concepts of international order, potentially creating a more hierarchical, less legalistic approach to managing global affairs.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Isabella Meyer, Professor of Early Modern European History at Oxford University, offers this perspective: "The Peace of Westphalia represented not just an end to devastating conflicts but a conceptual revolution in how Europeans understood political authority and international relations. In a timeline where these treaties failed, we would likely see the continued dominance of universal claims to authority—whether from the Papacy, the Holy Roman Emperor, or other actors claiming supranational legitimacy. The nation-state as we understand it might have emerged through a much more chaotic and violent process, possibly leading to political units organized along different principles. Religious identity would likely remain a more fundamental organizing principle in international affairs, potentially delaying or preventing the secularization of politics that characterized post-Westphalian Europe."

Professor Tomas Lindbeck, Chair of International Relations Theory at Stockholm University, suggests more optimistic possibilities: "While the Westphalian system provided a useful framework for international order, alternative systems might have developed with their own advantages. Without the rigid emphasis on territorial sovereignty that emerged from Westphalia, we might have seen earlier development of functional international cooperation on issues like trade, disease control, or environmental protection. The sacralization of national sovereignty that Westphalia initiated has sometimes impeded necessary intervention in cases of genocide or mass atrocity. An alternate system might have better balanced sovereignty with responsibility. That said, the transition would certainly have been turbulent, with decades or even centuries of additional instability before a new equilibrium emerged."

Dr. Ahmad al-Zahawi, Director of the Global Governance Institute, cautions against Eurocentric assumptions: "We often speak of the 'Westphalian system' as if it were universally applied, when in reality it was primarily a European arrangement gradually imposed on the rest of the world through colonization and power politics. In a timeline where Westphalia never occurred, non-European systems of international relations might have retained greater influence as globalization progressed. The Ottoman concept of millets—allowing religious communities significant autonomy while maintaining imperial oversight—or Chinese tributary systems might have contributed more substantially to evolving global norms. The resulting hybrid international system might have better accommodated diverse political traditions rather than universalizing European concepts of sovereignty."