Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Великая Северная Война - III: Молодые и жестокие - Extra History" video.

  1. The Germans created the caos in Russia, so one could say that the Germans got into Russia by their own effort.
    37
  2. Sweden didn't lose much ground in this war and didn't really lose its status as a great power. But many of our ancestors died at Poltava. Mine served with Upplands regiment and they all died there.
    7
  3. Peter the Great himself told some Swedish POWs that he at first tought that he had lost the battle of Poltava after the Swedish attack had made his men fleeing the field. And the battle could have ended with a Swedish victory there and then if just the Swedish cavalry had pursued the fleeing men and if the Swedish infantry had pressed on. But instead the infantry was ordered to break off the attack and the cavalry was no where to be seen. And time was lost, and then the Russians launched a huge counterattack that crushed the Swedes. So no, the Swedish army was not yet beaten when it arrived at Poltava. Things could very well have ended differently.
    3
  4. Charles had 3 armies - the army in Finland, the corps of Courland, and his majesties own army. And the finnish army was supposed to push into Russia near st Petersburg, but the army was led by a coward so it just turned around instead of tieing up Russia forces from other fronts. The army of Courland got confused what direction to take, so it got isolated and outnumbered by Russian forces and took heavy losses. And Charles was a bit unwise about his campaign about Russia, but he nevertheless he almost won. He intended to go northwards, but paniced when the Russians had burned all food so he made the irrational decision to go to Ukraine. He also decided to move his army fast instead of just wasting a single day of waiting for the Courland corps to link up with him, which in turn caused unnecessary losses of Swedish men as the corps was too small to fight on its own. And at Poltava there was this conflict between Rehnskiöld (the commander over the cavalry) and Lewenhaupt (the commander over the infantry). Where Rehnskiöld behaved like an asshole and bullied Lewenhaupt before the battle. But the day after the siege of Poltava turned into a battle after orders from King Charles. And Swedish forces moved forward and came into disseray because the infantry was moving too fast, in 2 hours before schedule. And therefore attacked the Russian without much support, so the losses piled up. But the infantry nevertheless crushed the Russian on the rightwing so they started to flee. And Peter the Great afterwards said that he considered the battle to be lost at this point, and he started to prepare his retreat. And despite all blunders Sweden had done under this battle and before it, it seemed like the Swedish Army was about to win again. All that had to be done was to pursue the fleeing enemy with all horsemen and foorsolidiers the Swedes had and throw them into the fleeing Russians. But then the unthinkable happened. Rehnskiölds horsemen was nowhere to be seen. And when Löwenhaupt got his new orders he couldn't believe his own eyes, as he was now ordered to halt his attack now when victory seemed certain. And all this because a small portion of the Swedish infantry on the left was tied up on the left flank togheter with Rehnskiöld's horsemen in a totally unimportant fight in nowhere. So the Russians got some rest and grabbed the oppurtionity to launch a might counterattack that crushed the scattered Swedish forces. And King Charles had foolishly never moved his artillery to the battlefield only because he thought it would be unnessary, because in none of his previous battles had artillery played any important role. But in this battle it could have played the difference between victory and defeat. Since the Russians had extremely much artillery at the disposal that caused huge losses on the Swedish army. And the Swedish artillery could have done the same if it had been deployed, and it could have played a key role in the last Swedish massassult that failed if it could have softening up the enemy resistance. All in all, one could say that the Swedes came very close to defeating Peter the Great despite all blunders and all suffering during the winter. And had the Swedes won the battle, one could have seen many interesting events coming to take place.... maybe the Turks would feel like joining the war against Russia, maybe the Cossacks and Ukrainians would finally join forces against Russia, and maybe the Russian people would rebel against Peter Great for all bloodshed he brought upon his own country. And many Russians also hated Peter because of his many unpopular western reforms, so if the Swedish army had weaken Peter, then many Russians could have seized the oppurtunity to rebel.
    3
  5. He was 2.06m with his boots on. And he never took his boots off.
    2
  6. Petersburg is the city that made Russia into a great power. It was Russias port to the west for exporting fur, timber and iron without having to let its trade go through Swedish hands. And the city also became kind of a capital for Tsarist Russia.
    1
  7. Under the video it says: ♪ Get the outro music here! http://bit.ly/23isQfx *Music by Sean and Dean Kiner: http://bit.ly/1WdBhnm
    1
  8. How can you be so sure that it will end the same way this time around?
    1
  9. What about the allies troops that walked into Germany?
    1
  10. He nearly succeded with that. And if he had taken Norway, history could have taken a very different direction... with Sweden seen as a strong ally for other great powers.
    1
  11. The problem is that you could not just turn around and go back the same way as you come from, since you already have plundered all food that there is to eat in the villages you have visited. Any army during the 1600s and 1700s would have great problems of finding food. And since Eastern Europe was poor and the farmers didn't have the same large harvests as farmers in Holland or Germany, so the armies had therefore to move faster on the Eastern front in order to avoid starving to death since place after place more quickly ran out of food. In the Netherlands it was no problem for a 100.000 men strong army to sit at the same place for weeks. But the Swedish army in Poland had to be constantly on the move, because after one village had run out of food, there was no other option than moving to the next village to get something to eat. So there was a reason why the Swedish army was the most mobile in Europe during the 1600s and 1700s. And there was reasons why armies didn't move much in Holland when the harvest to seed ratio was 20:1, compared to 10:1 in Germany, and only 5:1 in Poland.
    1
  12. England and the Netherlands are the exception and not the rule among European powers when it comes to warfare during the age of muskets. They were rich countries that rather put their money to their navies, while their armies were small and unimpressive compared to other great powers such as France, Austria and Russia. And since their armies was small and the countries was rich, they then could rely more upon their own supplies instead of looting. Sweden was however a poor country with a small population and could not win wars dragged on for years. Denmark, Poland, Saxony and Russia had 40 times larger population than Sweden, so the only hope to win was to make a blitzkrieg and fast knock them out one by one. And usally this tactic had served Sweden well, and the country even became one of the most powerful countries in Europe during the 30 years war. Sweden couldn't substain its own armies, so the solution was to let someone else (the civilian population in enemy lands) pay for the upkeep and provide it with food. All looting and french subsidies allowed Sweden to build an army of over 100,000 men during the 30 years war - which is not bad for a country of just 1,5 million inhabitants to have an army of the same size as France and Austria with populations 15-20 times larger, And having supplies transported into Eastern Europe is not a simple task- just ask the Germans and the French about that matter. This was in the age before canned food, trucks and railroad transports so transporting anything at all was a hard task back in this age, and the only good way of doing it was by riverboats if there was no ice outside.
    1
  13. King Charles was also a tall person by 1700s standards. He was 176cm according to some sources, 178cm according to other sources, and some historian claim he was 180cm.
    1