Originally posted by Drakken
May I remind everyone that this thread in on Swedish History?
Drakken
Uh, Drakken, that would not be the first time that a thread ricochets off into several different directions, would it?
-
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.
Uh, Drakken, that would not be the first time that a thread ricochets off into several different directions, would it?
Yes, but it wouldn't be fun for those Swedish History-crazed lunatics, happy to find a thread on their object
of passion, only to find that inside the others only talk about the American Civil War... think about them!
Don't want to be sued for false representation.
of passion, only to find that inside the others only talk about the American Civil War... think about them!
Don't want to be sued for false representation.
Have to agree with Drakken, American civil war suits here as well as a toxito suits to fish. If you want to discuss it, start your own thread.
Grrrr... if i recall correctly, there hasn't been a single American civil in Swedish history!!!
And for a king being first in battle??? Hmmm, that's already quite uncommon for that time... Prussian kings, Napoleon, Swedes... that's all that come to my mind now. Anyone remembers any other ones. (ok, Henri as well, and Francois, but first one wasn't a king yet and the other one lived a bit more then century ago).
Grrrr... if i recall correctly, there hasn't been a single American civil in Swedish history!!!
And for a king being first in battle??? Hmmm, that's already quite uncommon for that time... Prussian kings, Napoleon, Swedes... that's all that come to my mind now. Anyone remembers any other ones. (ok, Henri as well, and Francois, but first one wasn't a king yet and the other one lived a bit more then century ago).
But what the heck! We have had some civil wars here as well: We have the Dacke-uprising in the 1540s, 'Stora daldansen'-'The great Dala-dance' in 1743 when the people of Dalarna decided to 'runka perukerna av herrarna i Stockholm' (untranslatable expression hehe) and we have the partisan-like war in Skåne in late 17th century when the peasants there wanted to be under danish rule once more. And many, many other uproars like 'Klockupproret' etc.
These crappy revolts aren't exactly the American civil war but we can't expect americans to know that they're not the only nation that has been divided against itself since I have heard that ordinary history-education over there sucks when it comes to European history.
Sorry Drakken, hjarg and others, I will start a new thread, on the correct forum this time...
I find Swedish history a little boring that's all.
I find Swedish history a little boring that's all.
Yes, but the Swedish Empire was constantly strapped for cach. The truth being Sweden had neither money or manpower to retain the status as major power even for the period they did.
Most intresting thing about Swden is that NOONE has invaded Sweden by force
since the stone age *s*
Not many countries can say that
since the stone age *s*
Not many countries can say that
And Danemark until Lund 1655? And Russia by Karelia during the GNW? What about them?
I suspect you are only refering to succesfull invasions, and then only counting it as a success if the Capital was taken? and ignoring Queen Margareth (of Denmark, Norway and Sweden)?
By the way there are no reliable records before the Viking age, so we can really only say that Sweden only have been invaded sucessfully once since then.
Hmm... I seem to recall that either king Hans or Christian II (or both) managed to defeat Sweden and more or less restore the Union.
Was it in 1194? Your current capital Sigtuna burned and looted? (hmmmm... estonians don't know anything about it
) And that's way past stone age.
Last edited:
Since the union was not formally dissabled until Gustav Vasa I prefer to look at that as part of a to and from liberation war/ civil war and no invasion. And at least in CII case he was recogniced as the legitim king even before he took arms again Sweden (the Swedish ledership just have a disagreemnet in who should do the actual ruling).
From Margreth until Gustav Vasa the Union was in some sort of function and the danidh crown had always some sort of presences in Sweden. To count everey time the danish kings needed to use military to convice different parts of swedish nobility or commoners to cooperate as a invasion is greatly missleading.
In the war of 1809 the Russians marched by land through Norrbotten and made a landing near Umeaa. I think that counts as an invasion of our country.
Swedish glory
A lot of the discussion above has been trying to explain when the Empire was lost. I think the great mystery is how it was possible at all for a back-water, impoverished, sparsely populated nation in the very periphery of Europe could become such a power at all. The enigma becomes greater looking at the fact that the Swedes did retain the empire for a century.
Do you know why?
A lot of the discussion above has been trying to explain when the Empire was lost. I think the great mystery is how it was possible at all for a back-water, impoverished, sparsely populated nation in the very periphery of Europe could become such a power at all. The enigma becomes greater looking at the fact that the Swedes did retain the empire for a century.
Do you know why?
Re: Swedish glory
In short the explanation is spelled Gustavus Adolphus. When he ascended the throne Sweden was a third rate power fighting for retaining its independence. Its army was poor and the country had recently seen civil war and power struggles between monarch and nobles. When he died Sweden was one of the great powers of Europe. I think this is one of those times in history where a single individual made a profound impact on his country's destiny.
In doing all this he was helped by some facts. Sweden was, unlike most other European countries, free from religious minorities, so she could look beyong her borders without fighting those difficult issues at home. Also Sweden was, or had the potential to be, a great weapons manufacturer supplying everything her army needed. One key feature of GA's success was that he managed to unite the nobility (and the other groups) behind his great project of expansion, letting him in effect do as he saw fit even though his powers were formally limited.
The reason why it lasted so long is to a large degree the extraordinary line of rulers that Sweden produced in this period. I can't think of any other country that can show such a competent line of monarchs in such a short period. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles X and Charles XII were all extremely gifted generals, and Charles XI was good enough. Kristina was nothing special governing-wise, but at least she resigned. If she had ruled Sweden until 1689 there is no telling what would have happened.
When the kings performed all these feats of empire-building and -defending they were helped by the very competent bureaucracy created by Gustavus Adolphus that allowed them to mobilize their resources in a way that their neighbours could not, giving them the edge in the struggle for the Baltic.
In many ways Sweden as a great power was extremely modern for its time, probably the best organized country in Europe.
In short the explanation is spelled Gustavus Adolphus. When he ascended the throne Sweden was a third rate power fighting for retaining its independence. Its army was poor and the country had recently seen civil war and power struggles between monarch and nobles. When he died Sweden was one of the great powers of Europe. I think this is one of those times in history where a single individual made a profound impact on his country's destiny.
In doing all this he was helped by some facts. Sweden was, unlike most other European countries, free from religious minorities, so she could look beyong her borders without fighting those difficult issues at home. Also Sweden was, or had the potential to be, a great weapons manufacturer supplying everything her army needed. One key feature of GA's success was that he managed to unite the nobility (and the other groups) behind his great project of expansion, letting him in effect do as he saw fit even though his powers were formally limited.
The reason why it lasted so long is to a large degree the extraordinary line of rulers that Sweden produced in this period. I can't think of any other country that can show such a competent line of monarchs in such a short period. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles X and Charles XII were all extremely gifted generals, and Charles XI was good enough. Kristina was nothing special governing-wise, but at least she resigned. If she had ruled Sweden until 1689 there is no telling what would have happened.
When the kings performed all these feats of empire-building and -defending they were helped by the very competent bureaucracy created by Gustavus Adolphus that allowed them to mobilize their resources in a way that their neighbours could not, giving them the edge in the struggle for the Baltic.
In many ways Sweden as a great power was extremely modern for its time, probably the best organized country in Europe.
One thing: Sweden got Estonia even before Gustav. And was able to kick some Russian ass back then too. So Sweden wasn't a third-rate power back then too. But yes, the true glory of Sweden was during 30-years war.
No offense hjarg, but owning Estonia doth not a great power make. Sweden in 1611 was a third rate power, inferior to the second rate power Denmark. But Sweden was indeed a bit more powerful during the reign of Erik XIV, most notably he made the Swedish navy a powerful force in the Baltic, able to fight the Danish navy.
Nononono, you got me wrong. I didn't mean that owning Estonia is what makes nation great. I meant they fought 1558-1582 Livonian war against Russians, sometimes Poles and occasionally Danes (Magnus) and actually won. So they couldn't be so bad... or they were extremely strong third-rate nation.
I know what you meant I just couldn't resist. And I agree completely that Sweden was more powerful (second rate power, on par with Denmark) in the 1560s-70s. However, in 1611 Sweden *was* weaker (third rate power, inferior to Denmark) and fighting a desperate defensive war against several opponents. That was the situation that GA faced when he became king.Second half 16th century history is IMO the most neglected area of Swedish post-medieval history, often ignored in favor of the spectacular century that followed.