-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I can agree that Sweden has a rich history during that period and was a major power, but I acquestionate you put an end to the era in 1712. Shouldn't it be 1709 after the battle of Poltava?
I think that it should be 1630-1718. A lot of people in Europe did not think that Sweden was beaten until they knew that Karl XII was killed. But, IMHO Sweden was the biggest in Northern Europe, France in Middle and Spain in SouthWest. Sweden did not 'rule the world' bt we had one helluva army along with some neat commanders to go with that. And a nice conscription system too. 
Would the 'SouthWest' include anything other than Spain and Portugal?
I would say that Sweden didn't rule 'Europe', but was the dominant force in the 'Baltic' or 'northeast' region of Europe, an area that would include not only Sweden and Denmark, but Russia, Poland, the Hansa, and various north German states. These states had a great amount of interaction with each other during this period and relatively little interaction outside this area until after the Great Northern War. I would consider Sweden's status of dominance ending in 1709, although it took time for the other powers to exploit their advantage and Karl XII fought on valiantly.
I would say that Sweden didn't rule 'Europe', but was the dominant force in the 'Baltic' or 'northeast' region of Europe, an area that would include not only Sweden and Denmark, but Russia, Poland, the Hansa, and various north German states. These states had a great amount of interaction with each other during this period and relatively little interaction outside this area until after the Great Northern War. I would consider Sweden's status of dominance ending in 1709, although it took time for the other powers to exploit their advantage and Karl XII fought on valiantly
.
To me, Sweden stopped it's existance as great power after 1710, when they lost Estonia and Livonia to Russia. Then Russia replaced Sweden as ruler of the Baltics.
Btw, swedes, is there any truth in rumor that Karl XII was killed by his own troops, who got tired of constant wars.
Btw, swedes, is there any truth in rumor that Karl XII was killed by his own troops, who got tired of constant wars.
Maybe not by his own troops really, but it is possible that he was murdered by his brother-in-law. The question of succession had not been resolved (either his sister (and eventually his brother-in-law) or the 18 year old son of his other, late sister would succeed him). His brother-in-law seized the moment pretty successfully on the news of Charles's death, but wether this was because he ordered him killed or because he knew that the King's habit of leading from the front would probably kill him eventually we don't know. AFAIK there is no conclusive evidence either way. People have argued endlessly about ballistics, lead residue etc but I don't think we will ever know exactly what happened.
I think the end of Sweden as a great power came with the death of Charles in 1718. As long as he was alive Sweden was a great power (although a great power in a desperate situation) holding many enemies at bay but with him gone Sweden did not have the willpower or leadership to fight on.
I believe Sweden's fate was sealed by our forced commitments after the peace of Westphalia. It cost too much to keep defending northern Germany and to guarantee that peace, which brought us into some unnecessary conflicts, with Louis XIV's France for example.
But they were profitable provinces... I think that empire just got a bit too divided, making easier to conquer it and harder to defent it.
And thirty-year war was a peak of Swedeish power, and after that it slowly begun fading. I know, they fought succesful wars with at least Poland and Russia, but they were defencive in most of the part.
Still, life under Swedish rule was much better then Livonian order or Russians. It is still remembered as 'Good old Swedish rule'. So thanks for conquering us And shame that you didn't rule us for longer.
And thirty-year war was a peak of Swedeish power, and after that it slowly begun fading. I know, they fought succesful wars with at least Poland and Russia, but they were defencive in most of the part.
Still, life under Swedish rule was much better then Livonian order or Russians. It is still remembered as 'Good old Swedish rule'. So thanks for conquering us
And shame that you didn't rule us for longer.
I remember reading somewhere that in the late 17th century we spent as much on defence of the North German holdings as we did on the entire rest of the realm put together.
(Not the most accurate of sources I know...I will look it up.)
(Not the most accurate of sources I know...I will look it up.
)
On the death of Carolous XII
The death of CXII has been debated for almost 300 years, with explanations ranging from conspiracy theories and assassins to random bullets on the battlefield.
Currently, there is an interesting research going on where they are examining the alleged bullet (that killed him) with the DNA from his brain to see if they match. Since the bullet is made of a button from an army coat - and since the king was believed to be killed only by a bullet made of something from his personal coat - the question would more or less answered: he was shot by his own troops.
However, in rigorous ballistic tests combined with extensive field studies the conclusion still seem to be that the king was shot by cannon fire from the Norweigian positions 600 m away (see e.g. Peter Englund's 'Förflutenhetens Landskap'; no translation unfortunately) . I.e. legendary kings might not always die a legendary death: sometimes it only takes a random bullet and some bad luck.
The death of CXII has been debated for almost 300 years, with explanations ranging from conspiracy theories and assassins to random bullets on the battlefield.
Currently, there is an interesting research going on where they are examining the alleged bullet (that killed him) with the DNA from his brain to see if they match. Since the bullet is made of a button from an army coat - and since the king was believed to be killed only by a bullet made of something from his personal coat - the question would more or less answered: he was shot by his own troops.
However, in rigorous ballistic tests combined with extensive field studies the conclusion still seem to be that the king was shot by cannon fire from the Norweigian positions 600 m away (see e.g. Peter Englund's 'Förflutenhetens Landskap'; no translation unfortunately) . I.e. legendary kings might not always die a legendary death: sometimes it only takes a random bullet and some bad luck.
Hmmmm, how about income from these provinces? Did they get some extra ducats from it or were they just one big money-hole?
And they could have spend a little bit more on upgrading defences in Baltic states. They were in a bad shape and outdated when Northern war begun...
For an explanation of the rise and fall of Sweden as a great power I recommend 'The Swedish imperial experience, 1560-1718' by Michael Roberts (Sverige som stormakt, 1560-1718 in Swedish).
The 17th century was not a continious series of glorious military victories. The situation in the decades after 1660 was not that great. In the words of the aforementioned Roberts: [my translation]
'In 1679, the navy had been annihilated, Pomerania was lost, Livonia defenceless, Skåne in a complete uprising and the economical situation was desperate. Karl XI's courage in the battle at Lund had saved the country from a total defeat against Denmark, but it was only thanks to the diplomatic intervention of Louis XIV that Sweden was able to regain it's pre-war position. In the eyes of Europe, the country was now merely a French protegé.'
Of course, Sweden would rise again, but it would not be a great power forever...
The 17th century was not a continious series of glorious military victories. The situation in the decades after 1660 was not that great. In the words of the aforementioned Roberts: [my translation]
'In 1679, the navy had been annihilated, Pomerania was lost, Livonia defenceless, Skåne in a complete uprising and the economical situation was desperate. Karl XI's courage in the battle at Lund had saved the country from a total defeat against Denmark, but it was only thanks to the diplomatic intervention of Louis XIV that Sweden was able to regain it's pre-war position. In the eyes of Europe, the country was now merely a French protegé.'
Of course, Sweden would rise again, but it would not be a great power forever...
Re: On the death of Carolous XII
Yeah, I heard about that on TV the other night. Very interesting!
I myself believe that it was one of the big cannons in the fortress that killed him. *cries like hell for my beloved king*
YES
I beleive that Charles XII was killed by an Norwegian bullet. I do not beleive at all that it was own troops.
any ideas ?
I beleive that Charles XII was killed by an Norwegian bullet. I do not beleive at all that it was own troops.
any ideas ?
Well, it would be logical that he died by a norwegian bullet, since he was the second on the ladder climbing on the walls of Frederikhald.
Drakken
Drakken
Would anyone agree that the biginning of Peter I reign in Russia initiated a Gustav-like reform and shot Russia ahead of Sweden by the early 1700's?
Yes, a Gustav or Karl-like modernization with Stalin-like measures (or is it Stalin with Peter-like measures?).
Drakken
Drakken
Only a pity that the soldiers who found Gustav Adolf didnt know who he were..
It wasnt to far away that he was proclaimed Emperor of germany .
Then Sweden would have been a great power longer...
It wasnt to far away that he was proclaimed Emperor of germany .
Then Sweden would have been a great power longer...