Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Monsieur Z"
channel.
-
@leavingglobe4442 It lost 20% of its army to the winter.
But it was still a strong fighting force the next summer. The supply lines had been cut so the army was trapped with one option - attack the Russian army nearby and win a battle or slowly die from starvation.
There was a line with small, but strong forts protecting the base of the Russian army. The Swedish plan was to in the middle of the night launch a suprise attack on those forts before the Russians could wake up.
But the Swedish horsemen got lost in the dark and got delayed for 2 hours so the attack could not be launched. And when the horses finally arrived and began to position themselves to help the foot solidiers storm the forts... then the worst thing that could happen happened - One Russian soldier had discovered the Swedish army assemble outside the forts. He fired a shot. And soon drum rolls and people shouting orders could be heard and the Russian troops woke up and sent massive amounts of deadly fire towards the Swedish troops that not yet had moved into formation.
People died left and right. The surprise attack had failed. The Swedish troops were not prepared for the new situation. The troops were not yet in formation. And if you want to storm forts then you need Cannons, ladders, hand grenades and fascines - but the Swedes had hoped that the Swedish horsemen could storm those forts in a surprise attack so nothing of that would be needed. And bringing all that heavy equipment would have slowed down the Swedish army that was moving quickly in the cover of darkness to make their surprise attack, so it had been decide that no cannons or tools would be brought with them.
So the situation was disasterous.
Calling off the attack would have left the Russians aware of the Swedish armys intentions to break out from their starving position - something that would have been bad in the long run.
And attacking the Russian forts without good equipment, an orderly battle plan, and men in order and formation would lead to a bloodbath.
The Swedes choose the latter alternative and attacked the redoubts. Swedish numerical superiority was often more a disadvantage than an advantage, as it was impossible to find room to manouver and the defenders did not have to aim in order hit Swedish troops caught behind the cheval the frise, moats, or when they tried to climb up the walls to the forts without equipment. And when an attack of the first line was beaten back then 2nd line could not move forward as their path was blocked by retreating men running in the opposite direction.
The orders had been given so quickly this morning that commanders did not know what their objectives were.
The Swedes managed to capture many of the Russian forts and destroy a counter-attack by the Russian cavalry.
But when the struggle over the forts were over was the Swedish army chaos.
Most of the Swedish army had moved into position north-west of the forts and stood ready to attack the camp of the Russian army. The problem was only that a many battallions of Swedish infantry were missing. Those batallions commanded by Roos had just been storming and captured two forts. And now there was silence over the battlefield. The Swedish army was gone and nowhere to be seen. Roos and his men had been fighting all the morning and now when they had other things to do that to focus on that to fight for their lives to capture a fort, they now could look around themselves and realize that they were alone.
No one had any idea where to go. The Swedish field marschal had only told them to attack this fort. He had not said a word what would happen next or what the battle plan was. Everything had been done in a hurry that morning after the Russians had began shooting.
The Swedish army waited for hours for Roos and his men to show up. But he never came. Instead had some Russian survivors from the fighting moved to the Russian army camp and told what he had seen. The Russians found out that a small troop of Swedish foot soliders had lost contact with the main force. So Tsar Peter the Great send out a strong force of cavalry and infantry to destroy Roos and his men - which they did.
The hours passed. And the Swedes began preparing for an attack on the Russian camp without Roos.
But then they saw something they did not expect - the entire Russian army moved out from their fortified camp.
For the 9 years of fighting had the Swedes gathered a strong contempt for the Russian army to remain passive cowards in the battles they fought. But this time around it was the Russians who decide to move into battle.
The Swedish Field Marshal Rehnskiöld had even been arrogant enough to dismiss multiple individuals that had been reported that they had seen the Russian army move out. He had not even bothered to send out any horsemen to reconnaissance because he felt so confident, and he underestimated his enemy greatly.
Once again did things have to be done in a hurry because he had been slow to act.
The Swedish army had to be lined up for battle in the terrain. But because of the forrests could the horsemen not be lined up to protect sides of the Swedish line, so in the narrow terrain did the Swedish cavalry have to move behind the Swedish infantry. And this made the infantry very nervous that they would not get cavalry support the first moments in the battle because they were not in formation or standing on the sides where they were badly needed. The Russian line was much longer than the Swedish one, so the horses was needed to protect the flanks.
4000 Swedish infantry attacked 28,000 Russian infantry. 4 Swedish guns fired, while the Russians had over a hundred that fired 1,300 shots on the Swedish foot soldiers and caused massive death. The Swedish troops moved forward quickly to not allow the Russians much time to reload and cause even more death. Then came the deadly Russian musket fire.
And the Swedish troops pushed forward towards the Russian line. Swedish Carolean tactics was extremely offensive and based on attacking at all costs - which this attack against insane odds shows. Attacking with pikes, swords and bayonets were prefered over long fire fights. And the Swedish infantry normally only fired 1 or 2 shots at 20 meters range before they launched their attack with their swords (the bayonets were mostly just used to kill wounded prisoners of war).
The quality of the Swedish gunpowder had declined during the months the army had been trapped in Ukraine, so for that reason did the Swedish General wait until the Russians were even closer than usual before he ordered his men to fire. Than would prevent the musket balls from falling down into the ground before they could hit their targets. The Swedish fire was deadly, and the Swedish attack with swords destroyed the first Russian line.
The Swedes were winning on the right side.
But the attack on the left was going slowly and the infantry there had not yet come into contact with the enemy.
And as the right side was moving forward and pushing back the Russian troops was the Swedish line beginning to be thinned out. Victory was close. Could the Swedes push forward on the left and make also that side to start panic, then would the Russian numerical superiority only turn into a disadvantage for them like it had in earlier battles, as panic, stampede and lacking of space to manouver would making fleeing Russian troops an easy target, and the dicipline of the army would fall apart.
Warfare was mostly about psychology back in the 1700s.
The Swedish left side of the line came into contact with the enemy and began fighting. On this side did Närke-Värmlands regiment and troops from Östergötland stand, and they were facing all the elite regiments of the Russian army. Fighting was desperate. Calls for help from the Swedish cavalry was made, But the Swedish cavalry had once again f*cked up this day, and they were nowhere to be seen.
Some Swedish cavalry moved to the right side of the line to help the fighting there.
But it was now crucial that help quickly reached the left side of the Swedish line which was under enormous stress and was threatened out being outflanked.
Finally did the Swedes find a few small cavalry units it could send to the left, and they moved forward to get ready to join the fight.
But then when victory seemed near, did the thing happen which was not allowed to happen - the men in Närke Värmland regiment began to flee, and the left side of the Swedish line fell apart because of some cowards.
And the regiment from Uppland suddenly had no men to protect its left side of their line. And they got encircled by an ocean of Russian troops in green uniforms and all but 34 out of the 700 men were slaughtered. And then the next Swedish regiment suffered the same fate. And the next...
The Swedish cavalry was sent in to plug the holes in the line... but it was too little too late.
The Swedish army had been destroyed in just 15 minutes or so.
So yeah, the battle at Poltava could have been won. But incompetence of Rhenskiöld, Roos, the Cavalry commanders, and the cowards in Närke-Värmlands regiment made Sweden lose the battle this day.
5
-
5
-
4
-
"No mention of Swedish small population compared to other European Great powers it was competing with thus dooming it from beginning?"
Portugal with 1 million people created the first global empire in history. The Dutch became the financial centre around the world and colonized America and the pacific and did beat back invasions by Spain and France that had nearly 10 times larger population.
"Sweden just had and still has too small population and thus it lacked economy and even army to sustain such large empire"
That is a very ignorant view of history. You apply your worldview based on the conditions 2021 and the 1900s back to the 1600s and 1700s.
Fact is that small countries could punch greatly above their own weight - as England, the Netherlands and Sweden show. While many large countries were very badly managed (France, Spain, Austria, Poland and the Ottoman empire).
The Netherlands could mobilize an almost equally large army as France despite only having 10% as large population. England built a more powerful navy than France, despite her neighbour had a 5 times larger population and the best farmland in Europe.
Sweden was the most well managed of all the countries in the early 1600's. Its economic administration was superior to all other countries of its day, and both Finland and Sweden is to this day much formed by the reforms of Axel Oxenstierna. And its army was also the best in Europe - and it conquered Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Munich and threatened Copenhagen so the Danes were forced to hand over half their land to Sweden in 1658.
Sweden was the largest exporter in the world of copper and iron. It controlled the trade between Western Europe and Russia. It was the only country in Europe which could produce all the materials needed for shipbuilding - iron, tar, oak trees, rope, copper and so on.
While almost all other countries in Europe was dependent on vulnerable imports of weapons, did Sweden have its own iron industry and military industrial complex that could supply a large army. Most other countries had junk quality troops, while Sweden had a standing army that creating more cohesion, better training and better fighting on the battlefield.
Sweden did also have one of the largest navies in the world. And in some time periods (like the 1580s) did it have the strongest navy in Europe. And also its merchant navy was among the largest in Europe. And when other countries fought each other (like France, England and the Netherlands in the late 1600s) then did foreign ships choose to sail under the neutral Swedish flag instead to avoid getting plundered by enemy nations. Swedens navy was strong and the countries at war would think twice before attacking neutral Swedish ships.
"and most of Swedish empire was even less populated and less developed than Sweden itself thus burdening it instead of helping it"
Wrong again.
Pomerania gave Sweden an excellent base of military operations against Denmark and Germany. It was also often here that foreign merchant ships came to enter Swedish service. It was a very sofisticated province that provided the country with many men like the chemist Scheele and General Blücher.
Ownership of the province also guaranteed that Sweden would have a voice in the German parliament and therefore a say in how Germany would be runned. The province was also a source of oak tree for the navy.
Livonia and Estonia was the bread basket of the Swedish empire. They controlled the important Baltic trade with Russia and Reval was also the largest city in the Swedish empire. And they gave Sweden and important base of operations against Poland - which was extremely important since Sweden was Swedens most dangerous enemy in the first half of the 1600s.
Ingria was important since it created a land bridge Between Finland and the Baltic provinces. So now it was possible to transport troops on land towards Poland if there was a need for it. And this landmass did also cut off Russias access to the Baltic sea, and thus eliminated a dangerous military and economical competitor.
And the Polish and German cities along the Baltic sea controlled the rivers and allowed Sweden to get taxes and benefit its own traders in the Baltic sea region
Finland was perhaps the only part of the empire that could be described as poor and not so populated. But never the less did Finland play an important role in the Swedish empire. For 700 years it was Swedens shield against Russia. Finland protected Sweden and took the blows from the wars with Russia. It was usually Finland that got burned and plundered by Russian troops, while Sweden more often was spared.
But on the other hand did Sweden give Finland protection from Russian aggression. So without Sweden there would be no Finland today. Had Russia taken Finland and kept it for centuries, then they would probably have forced the population to learn Russian and assimilate and Finnish culture and language woult have been wiped out.
Finland did provide Sweden with a 3rd of the empires military manpower. And many of its elite units. From time to time did it provide Sweden with shipbuilding capacity and exports of tar.
"Their position as a Great power was fluke due Thirty years war and consequent weakening and fatigue of most of European powers"
As I said earlier, the Netherlands, England, and Sweden succeded well thanks to good organisation of their state machinery that allowed them to mobilize economic resources much more effiecent than other countries.
And their military was more modern. England and the Netherlands was naval powers, while Sweden was more of land based empire.
Back in the 1400s I don't think anyone would expect that Sweden would ever would build the strongest navy in the Baltic sea. The country totally lacked anything resemebling a naval tradition. It did not have any warships, or any merchant ships either for that matter. It did not have any experiences sailors and seamen at all. A few fishermen in a handful of villages along the Baltic sea coast that was all.
And meanwhile did Denmark and Norway have a strong naval tradition. Germany (Lübeck) had an increadibly strong naval tradition and many flourishing cities along the coast with a lively trade on the seas. And also Poland had a strong maritime link.
But 250 years later would Sweden dominate the Baltic sea and have built the most powerful warships in the world - like Kronan and Vasa.
Not bad for a country which had to start from scratch and create a navy out from nothing. That the country managed to create any own navy at all in itself is perhaps the largest miracle at all.
Had you told a German, a Dane or a Pole back in the 1300s or the 1400s that Sweden would have the strongest navy in Northern Europe one day, then they would have laughed at you.
"Geography and demography is the key and Swedish one just isnt suited for imperial ambitions"
And yet Sweden nearly won the Great Northern war despite the country with its 2 million people had to fight alone against Russia with 14 million people, Poland with 14 million people, and Saxony and Denmark.
For 20 years it fought this war. Frederick the Great fought the seven years war against a mighty enemy coalition, but his odds were better than those Sweden had and yet his Kingdom was nearly lost.
So the Swedish war machine can therefore to be said to have been much more ahead of its time, than the military of Frederick.
Prussia would however survive and become a great power. And today is Germany the most powerful country in Europe.
So from that perspective do I not think it would have been strange if Sweden could have remained a great power if it had managed to win the Great Northern war, and then conquer Norway (an easy task), and then would the country avoid military adventures and behead its worthless nobility. And then would the country do fine.
It could focus on colonialism now when peace had been established. A defensive military pact with the Ottomans and Persia could check Russian military aggression by unifying against this common enemy. And the bad economic mismanagement of the 1700s could have been avoided by avoiding costly wars
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
"America's prosperity was built on free trade and free enterprise."
You are ignorant about history. USA had the worlds highest average tariff rate throughout the 1800s. And it continued to have it up until 1945. And it was between 1776 and 1945 it became an industrial gigant and the richest country in world.
It was only very late in American history that the country started to try free trade. And in 1945 it worked well. There was not much competition around the world. Germany, Japan, Italy, China, England, France and Russia all laid in ruins after the war.
But as soon as those countries recovered, then America quickly lost its dominance it once had.
USA have its weakpoints and strenghts. Some industries do well, while other industries do less well.
I would say that American government state sponsorship (which is a form of protectionism) have helped to create many new industries since 1945 (and also long before that). Nuclear power would not have existed without the Manhattan project. Wall street would not exist without numerous bailouts, Americas dominance in aviation would not exist without the US government support of its aviaton industry and with its bailouts and gigantic purchases of military aircrafts.
The IT industry would not exist if the US government had not invested heavily into creating the internet and computers, and then there would not have been any Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google or Amazon without it. Apple got state support from the government when it was a new start up company. It took technologies that the American tax payers had paid for creating - semiconductors from the US navy, touchscreen technology (created by the British military with its radar programme back in the 1960s), and other stuff developed by DARPA of the US military such as GPS, the internet, SIRI etc.
New infant industries needs government help to grow. Some does need government handouts, while some does and not and are instead better helped by tariffs, import quotas, generous tax exemptions, generous low interest loans from state owned banks, government purchase contracts and so on.
All rich countries does those things. So the world market is not a level playing field where countries all around the world compete with each other on equal terms. Usually do countries want protectionism for their own industries that are weak. And free trade in areas where their own companies are strong and need little government help to be succesful.
Free trade is only fun if your country is the worlds strongest - like America after 1945, or like in England in the 1860s.
But for the rest of the world its not so fun.
Did America want to open up its economy to England in the early 1800s and let cheap and superior British products outcompete and destroy the small American industrial base that existed? No.
America had just fought a war for independence which it nearly had lost because the country lacked industrial manufacturing capacity. It could not produce its own muskets, uniforms, cannon balls and without French help they might probably have been doomed.
So if America wanted to survive a future war with Britain (which still was a big threat after the war of independence), then USA had to create its own industry. Outsourcing all manufacturing to Britain would have been as dangerous as foolish.
So how then would America then be able to industrialize if it could not compete with England? - And the answer is protectionism.
America had the highest tariffs in the world. But statistics does not even tell the full story when you compare USA to other countries in Europe, as the Atlantic with its higher transportation costs created a natural protectionist barrier that European countries did not have. And without it would Americas tariffs perhaps have been even higher.
And after half a century did the hard work pay off. By the late 1800s had the protectionist USA and protectionist Germany begun to outcompete free trading England. And by the 1880s onwards was America the most powerful industrial power in the world thanks to the new industrial revolution based around oil, chemicals, electricity, combustion engines, steel and railroads - which were fields in which America togheter with Germany dominated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegorb2653
"Also you gotta consider automation, the industrial sector doesn't need the human labour anymore it has machines."
Much of that is just a result of re-classification of jobs. In the past did companies include many types of workers.
Volvo cars would have a financial branch of the company giving car loans to customers and handeling the internal finances of the company. And the company had hired its own janitors that cleaned the office and factory. And so on.
Today companies are runned differently.
Today car makers only make cars. And the financial matters are no longer handled by the company itself - but instead it let an independent bank take care of those things. It no longer have its own janitors, but does instead buy services from a cleaning firm to do the same job of cleaning the office as before.
So as you see have anything changed?
No. The bankers are still bankers, and the janitors are still janitors. But in the past they were called industrial workers, because they were hired by an industrial company like Volvo. But today they are not classed as industrial workers anymore despite they do they exact same jobs as before.
And that is because the cleaning firm is now called a "service sector job" provider. And the same goes for the bank.
And a car mechanic makes the same job as someone 40 years ago, but since he now got some electronical tools at his disposal he is called a "technician" and not a car mechanic. And he therefore recorded in statistics as a service sector worker, while he in the past was an industrial worker.
"It has a service and tech sector like all advanced economies that's the new reality for developed nations."
Why do you think that have happened?
I would say its only because industry have become so much more productive that it no longer needs as many workers as before. If better organization of the workplace, better tools and machinery and so on can increase production in a factory 10 fold. Then you will often be able to reduce the workforce and still be able to produce as much stuff as before.
So you can cut down the number of workers and thereby increase profits by getting rid of unecessary workers.
And those workers needs to go somewhere else to get a job. And usually it is service jobs they go to.
So while service jobs provide much or most(?) of the jobs in a country, that doesn't mean that the industrial sector is unimportant. It is the industry that leads innovation in your country. Its there were the productivity growth comes from, and higher productivity enables more incomes for companies and taxes for governments and wages for workers.
It push up wages for your entire country and not just the industrial workers. And thereby do everyone get a higher standard of living. But the same cannot be said about the service sector jobs that shows nearly no productivity growth at all. And every society in human history have produced more stuff than it consumed. It had to. Otherwise would people sooner or later starve to death if you consume more than you produce.
If you wonder what a slow growth economy looklike, then look at medieval Europe. On average the GDP only grew by 1% per 100 years!
With such a slow growth world would it take many hundreds of years for a village to recover if you burned down all homes. And the only way to get rich fast would be by stealing wealth from someone else. Wealth inequality was gigantic, and so also social inequality.
So do I want that? - Hell no.
That is why industrialization is needed. All societies needs a flourishing manufacturing sector. Most countries are also not lucky enough to have all kinds of natural resources within its own borders. And if you wanna import oil, modern American fighter jets, and advanced electronics and machinery then you need foreign currency to do so.
You can get foreign currency by selling stuff to foreigners and the best way to do so is by selling expensive high tech products. The demand is high so prices you can charge is high, and when not many other countries have the skills so make such advanced products, then competition will be limited and you can therefore charge high prices and make gigantic profits. You could for example sell jet engines or the latest generation of nuclear reactors and get enormously rich.
Selling natural resources is usually a very ineffiecent way of getting a good trading balance. As a Greek you will have to sell a hell of a lot of oranges (probably many many thousands) before you can for the imports of 1 single German Mercedes.
And service sector jobs are usually completly useless at gathering any foreign currency at all. Giving your neighbour a massage at your spa will not generate a single Dollar, Yuan, Yen or Euro to pay for all necessary imports your country will have to make.
And without imports, then your population will perhaps need to get used to starving to death from lack of food, or freezing to death during the winter, live in poverty due to lack of oil, and have a military too weak to protect it from foreign aggression.
So yes, the industrial sector is still important. And a service sector job is inferior in value in my view, since they do not generate any increases to a countrys productivity and standard of living.
1
-
1
-
1