When I took Western Civilization at the Naval Academy we covered the 30 Years War. Obviously being a military academy we focused on the big picture side, how the war contributed to the supposed demise of the mercenary army and the rise of the state army (a reason (one of many) cited for this included the tremendous manpower requirements for manning fortified towns with the bastioned traces and also state armies could be controlled a lot easier than mercenary armies). And we postulated that the war left Germany a largely divided state of principalities for almost two centuries afterward before her rise to nationhood in the late 19th Century. On the tactical side I remember they stated that the battles were typically engagements of musketry and pikes with cavalry attacks to harass the flanks and pursue the enemy from the field. I remember seeing swords of the period ranging from the rapier's of the nobility to the short bladed swords of the common footmen. An article I saw stated that the common foot soldier received little training with the use of the sword, learning how to use the weapon on the job or from other veterans. Only the nobles or officer class received any formal swordsmanship training. I wonder if this is true? It seems to make little sense that soldiers would be untrained in the use of ANY armaments they were issued or owned.