By trying to wrap my head around the 30YW, one of the elements I still struggle with is the conception of the state in that time period. We are before an absolutism, after a feudalism, "nation" is not at all a thing, so when we speak about, let's say, Bohemia, is it a territory strictly delimited that belongs to a noble?
I also am aware that it probably was very different if we talk about a city like Hamburg or a church land. And also quite different in France or Spain in comparision to Austria.
It also doesn't seem to be a pure noble fights noble situation with a lot of local armies taking part out of religious, economic or self defense reasons. It is just hard to imagine how organised and how coordinated these leagues were between small localities taking arms, the emperor and someone like Spain, to mercenaries and the motivation of soliders on the ground, if we can talk about soliders at all.
I am sorry for the confusion in the question but as you can see, I am confused. I would be also very thankful for reading reccomendation, I should be able to get it through my university.
Thank you very much for anyone responding!
I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but in the case of Bohemia, it actually was a separate state.
For simplicity's sake, we are taught that places like Bohemia and Hungary were part of Austria, when in fact they were not. They were legally separate states, united by a shared ruler. In this case that was HRE Ferdinand.
This is called a personal union, and has been very common throughout history. One of the most famous was that of Scotland and England. After the death of Queen Elizabeth I, James VI Stewart, king of Scotland, became James I Stuart of England. They both were independent countries, with their own laws and systems of government. Until the Act of Union which created the U.K., the only thing that truly united the countries was a shared king.
This is the case for Bohemia during the 30 years war. Ferdinand inherited the titles of Holy Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia, and King of Hungary among others. All 3 were separate states with their own nobility and governing bodies, and a shared king.
The 30 years war kicked off when the nobles in Bohemia deposed Ferdinand from his throne in Bohemia, and asked Frederick V of the Palatinate to become King of Bohemia. Bohemia didn't declare independence, they already were independent. After the war, they were not annexed. Bohemia remained it's own kingdom, with Ferdinand as the king once again.
The other states of the HRE were fully independent for the most part. Several actually aligned with the Empires enemies, Sweden in particular.
If you elaborate on the question a bit, or have further questions maybe I can clear them up? I hope this helps.
Well nations were a thing at the time, just not necessarily as we understand them today. What nation you belonged to might depend on where the other people you are interacting with are from and if they feel that they are close enough to you, geographically and culturally, to have a kindred connection. A nation might not necessarily be the kingdom you live in or the land of the lord you are a subject of.
Universities of the Middle Ages are a great place to see nation formation in practice, since they are one of the few places where (educated and not necessarily noble) people from many different lands congregate and organize themselves.
At the University in Bologna for example, the students originally grouped themselves into four nations: Lombard, Tuscan, Roman and Ultramontane. The first three are recognizable today but Ultramontane (meaning "From beyond the mountains") was considered to be people from France, Germany and England. The last group is kind of a "catch all" nation, but their more specific homelands would be considered "provinces".
At the University of Paris, by contrast, the nations were English (Or German), Norman, Picard and French.
As you can see, the different conceptions of nationhood have a lot to do with what kind of different cultures the local people are used to. If I regularly interact with certain regional peoples, they are distinct enough to be considered nations, but I may not be familiar enough with people from lands further away to really consider them distinct in my mind.
The distinctions of nationhood are separate from Kingdoms, which had generally understood borders and specific vassals. Nationhood is also distinct from languages, as many of the "national" languages as people understood them would be considered dialects today. But as the old adage goes, "A language is a dialect with an army", and in those days many people had armies.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nation-medieval-university-group
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Four_nations_of_the_University_of_Paris.png
