Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Knowledgia"
channel.
-
21
-
15
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Pewdiepie, IKEA, vikings, Greta Thunberg, the corona strategy, ABBA, Absolut Vodka, and being a social democratic fantasy utopia for Bernie Sanders around the world is what people know Sweden of.
The Swedish establishment are ashamed of the Pirate Bay and Pewdiepie and they love Greta Thunberg and Spotify. But personally I feel the opposite way about those things.
I more think of Sweden as a great power during the 1600s and early 1700. And a country of scientists/innovators (Scheele, Linneaus, Nobel, Ericson), and country with the best snacks, candy and sugary drinks in the world (trocadero, julmust, pommac, loranga, etc).
Sweden is also the home of much rock music and Max Martin - the father of nearly all pop music in the world the last 30 years.
6
-
5
-
I guess Denmark would soon have been eaten up by Sweden. The Kola peninsula would become Swedish. And Archangelsk would have become Russias most important port in the north. Poland would probably be swallowed by the Swedish sphere of influence. More Swedish colonies in the new world would become a thing.
Sweden would probably try to stay out of more future wars since it already had enough problems with consolidating all conquests, and integrating all new territories into the country.
Norway would probably undergo an intensive campaign to become Swedenified, like the stolen Danish provinces were.
And Finland would perhaps become next on the line.
Without wars would the empire prosper. And neighbouring countries would think twice before attacking its strong neighbour. Poland would be too weak to attack Sweden. Prussia and Russia would be too weak to attack Sweden on their own.
Swedens population (including all stolen land) would now be over 50% larger than that of the Netherlands.
But in the late 1800s would probably the cracks in the empire appear. Russians, Poles, Balts, Germans, Danes and perhaps also Finns and Norwegians would have their hearts filled with nationalism and dream about independence. And they would start seeing Sweden as an obstacle to their dreams, and therefore they would hate Sweden and try to destroy it.
Much like slavs hated the Austro-Hungrian empire, and how poles resisted their German and Russian occupants.
Sweden would become dysfunctional as a democratic state.
The Swedish minority could not stay in power under democracy, so it would have to be an opressive regime to keep minorities in their place. But if it tried to be generous to minorities, they would still remain ungrateful Sweden haters and want independence - like Norway did.
So nothing could be gained form appeasement, so the empire would probably be doomed once nationalism led to movements for independence. Civil wars could break out. And foreign powers would probably be more than willing to help independence movments to weaken Sweden and divide it up.
The days of the empire would then be numbered.
5
-
5
-
4
-
@MrFosite
"My conclusion, the fault lies squarely on the nonsensical move to try and become a military power over an maritime one, considering resources at disposal the limitation of manpower, and a history of shipbuilding."
Your post is nonsensical.
Sweden was never a shipbuilding nation. It became one thanks to efforts from the Swedish state. And for no other reason. Before the state decided to build a navy there existed no naval tradition at all in Sweden. Germany had Lubeck, Poland had Gdansk, Denmark had Copenhagen and Sweden had nothing. No fishing industry. No large trading centre. No seamen. No ships. Nothing.
So that Sweden did get a strong navy at all should be seen as a miracle. And the only reason it got one was because it needed to be able to transport troops safely from Sweden to Finland, Germany, the Baltics or Poland and preventing Swedens enemies from transporting troops to invade Sweden.
So it was for the sake of its army it did start to build a navy and not the other way around.
And having a strong army was necessary when you are neighbour with Denmark and Russia, and are involved with dynastic struggles with Poland - which was a Great power back in the 1500 and 1600s.
And without an army would no Sweden have existed. It would be called Denmark today. And Finland would have been called Russia.
That is what would have happened if your ideas had been tried out.
"A military power requires a contentious stream of manpower which small nations cant afford"
You make the mistake of thinking that warfare in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s are the same as in modern times.
Well it isn't. Back in those old days could a small country have a much greater chance of beating a big one.
Sweden conquered Moscow, Warzaw, Prague, Germany. Would that be possible today? I highly doubt that.
The little Macedonia and the Mongols conquered gigantic plots of land with their relativly tiny population.
Prussia went from a small province with no natural resources into becoming modern day Germany, much thanks to its ability to beat many big countries at the same time in the Seven years war.
"If Swedish Empire would have gone the way the Dutch Republic did, it might have ended up overshadowing them."
The Dutch had been a part of the Spanish empire and had been shipping goods to America and the pacific. They knew all the routes to all secret new lands. While Sweden didn't.
The Dutch was an experienced maritime power that had been sailing ships during the middle ages. While Sweden was a total new comer in sailing the seas. The Netherlands had an easy access to the new world. While Swedens road to the Atlantic ocean was blocked by its enemy Denmark.
And much of its waters was frozen during the cold winters, while the milder climate allowed the Dutch to sail.
And using wind and water power to cut timber was easy when your water did not freeze into ice like it did for Sweden. And building canals is possible when you have a high population density, a rich population and not so much winter cold - but Sweden did not have that option to ship things across canals like the Dutch or British did.
So of course it could never create the same rich trade within the country.
The Netherlands were located between France, Germany and England and had perfect access to capital from all those areas and could therefore build a huge banking sector. Sweden did not have the same perfect location for becoming a banking centre of Europe. And get money and cheap loans for building large fleets.
And if one look at price levels on Swedish goods, do they usually have more in common with price levels in cities like Hamburg than they do with a Swedish city 100 kilometres away. And that is because it was easier to transport things by ships than by land. And as I said earlier, Sweden lacked good waterways like the Netherlands because of the curse of nature.
So of course it would have a harder time creating a flourishing trading empire. Its best chance rather laid with letting the army conquer cities in the Baltics and northern Germany and then continue to conquer the Polish and East German coast and turning all the coast line of the Baltic sea into Swedish territory. This the same way as Rome took over every part of the mediterranean.
4
-
@mishaten5548
"What kind of rescue of Russia from destruction are you talking about?"
Russia had lost battle after battle against the Swedes for 9 years. It now stood alone against Sweden. Tsar Peter did have a rocky start of his rule and he made himself unpopular with his westernization reforms. The war dragged on with no victory in sight. War taxes were going up. Men were dying and victory was no closer than 9 years ago.
The country had humiliated itself internationally at Narva, and most foreigners now expected Sweden to win this war.
Another victory like Narva, and that could have been the straw that finally broke the camels back.
A Swedish victory at Poltava would have left the possibility of Ukrainians and Crimean tatars to join the Swedish army as the Russians left the Ukraine alone. And another loss could have triggered war tired Russians to either pressure the Tsar into surrender with the Swedes, or another civil war could have started as the Tsar now would be more unpopular than ever after another big defeat.
And a divided Russia could not stand up foreign aggression - just as it couldn't when Sweden took Ingria and Kexholm from Russia a hundred years earlier.
A weak Russia would also be a tempting target for its enemies - Persia and the Ottoman empire.
The Ottomans had captured the Tsar during the war - which shows that the Russian army was not this improved amazing military machine that historians claim it was after 9 years of war witht he Swedes.
"And by the way, even according to Swedish historians, the Battle of Poltava was the beginning of the end of the Swedish Empire."
Bengt Liljegren is a clownworld popular historian I have no respect for. Peter Englund's book "Poltava" contain lots of references too clown books so I cannot take all his personal opinions seriously.
I think the author Peter From is more correct in his book about the battle of Poltava when ha makes the claim that I just earlier - A Swedish victory could have sparked a revolt against Peter the Great, and thus would a civil war throw the country into chaos and the war tired Russia would had to agree to a peace that was more or less on Swedish terms.
Poltava was just a meaningless milestone in Swedish history in my opinion. You do in a typically Russian way lie and pretend that Swedens resources was depleted - which they were not. Two more armies was created. Big victories was also won at Gadebusch in 1712 and Helsingborg 1710 after the loss at Poltava.
You forget that the war dragged on for another 12 years - and this despite your Russia had multiple allies at your side Denmark, Saxony, and Poland and later on also Hanover(+England) and Brandenburg.
So no, I am not impressed by the Russian army unlike the "historians" your refer to as experts on this topic.
And even after the loss at Poltava could things have ended very differently for Sweden. The battle at Napue could have been won if the Finnish militia had not been acting like cowards and deserted instead of fighting. Then Finland would have remained in Swedish hands. Had the Swedish King not died in 1718, would Norway likely had fallen into Swedish hands since Fredriksten fortress in Southern Norway was about to surrender - and with that surrender would the door to western Norway lay open for the Swedish army. And in the North was Armfeld's army about to bring the city of Trondheim to its knees. And he was also almost able to capture the city without a fight in the autumn after the pathetic flight of the Norwegian troops from the two redoubts that guarded the road to the town.
And with the fall of Norway, would peace with Denmark be achieved on favorable terms for the Swedes.
And troops could now be freed up to retake lost territories in Germany from the weak Kingdom of Hanover,
and with a little military pressure would this be an easy win for the larger, stronger and better Swedish army.
And with diplomacy and economic pressures would England, break ties with their Hanoverian Kings foreign policy.
And without Englands backing would Hanover be forced to surrender to the Swedes.
Diplomacy had successfully played Swedens enemies out against each other. Saxony had grown suspicious of Russia and it wanted to sign a peace before Denmark, Russia, and Brandenburg left the war so it could get more favorable peace terms. At this late point of the war it was happy to surrender to the Swedes in exchange for a guarantee than Stanislaus Leczinsky should not be supported to retake the throne in Poland from Augustus the Strong. Saxony had heard rumours that the Swedish-Russian peace talks were going well, and a fear existed that Russia could agree to supporting Stanislaous.
Brandenburg had been pretty much pro-Swedish for much of the war, and could accept changing sides in the conflict - it even proposed that it would get Stettin from Sweden and inexchange would Brandenburgian troops help Sweden fight against Denmark and Hanover to get territories at those countries expense as compensation. But the stubborn Swedish King refused the idea.
So with Denmark and Hanover out of the way, would peace deals with Saxony and Brandenburg be easy.
And against Russia did Sweden have many cards to play also after Poltava. The Swedish deepwater navy remained the most powerful navy in the Baltic sea, and surprise attacks over shallow waters that deepgoing ships could not reach was all that the Russians got. Russian galleys made out of low quality junk timber were ships with no long life span.
Thanks to Görtz diplomacy of delaying peace talks that led to nowhere and only gave Sweden more time to recruit more soldiers and playing out Swedens enemies against each other had largely been succesful 1714-1718.
Enemy countries had grown suspicious of each other. Denmark and Russia could for example not come to an agreement of a combined Danish-Russian invasion of Sweden in 1716.
And England and Russia was succesfully played out against each other. No one of those countries wanted to be the last sucker to not come into a peace agreement with Sweden. So concessions had to be made. Peter could accept an alliance with Brandenburg and Sweden - but Carolus Rex could not accept any peace that included any loss of land. So the plans of Russia helping Sweden to take territories on Denmarks expense could not come into being because of the stubborness of the Swedish King.
But none of this was known to the Russians during the peace talks. The talks just led to nowhere. And the secret peace talks Russia made with Sweden made Russias military allies suspicious and hostile towards her. Just the same way as Russia became suspicious of England and her will to not let the Russians grow too powerful.
And the Swedish support for the Jacobines was used as a diplomatic tool to pressure England into surrender and joining the Swedes. If Sweden agreed to not support the Jacobines then it would be a big plus for Britain in the peace negotiations. And the fight between Tsar Peter the Great and his son Alexei was also used by Swedish diplomacy, but it acted too late to get his son to Sweden, and play him out as a card against Russia. Instead he went to Russia to see his father - which was not happy with him and his ties with the Swedes so he tortured and murdered him.
Russia was very eager to come to peace fast since the war had dragged on for a very long time, and the Russians feared a British intervention on Swedens side and that Russias allies would abandon her.
So if Denmark and Germany gave up and left Russia alone - then would Russia also have to give up pretty soon and moderate their demands, and not just give back Finland but also the Baltic provinces except St. Petersburg and parts of Ingria.
Perhaps the dogmatic Carolus Rex could not even accept those peace terms... but even if the story would end here would the Swedish empire remained almost untarnished in terms of lost territory.
But I see that Sweden had a pretty good chance of winning in the east after the conquest of Norway. The plan of Carolus rex was to ship his troops from Norway over to the Baltics and retake the harbors there in this place which was almost left unguarded by Russian troops.
And without the harbors would the Russian army be forced to leave Finland. Because Finland was a poor country that could not produce enough food to feed a Russian army of over 20,000 men. And roads on land was in poor condition, indeed almost no roads at all existed in Finland before the mid-1700s so there was no way that enough horse carriages could carry food from Russia into Finland that way.
So the Russian army would now either have to starve to death or leave Finland.
So in this way would both Finland and the Baltics go back to Sweden. And everything Sweden had lost would be as good as retaken by now. And if the Tsar was wise and realistic, then he would sue for peace by now, and accept a peace that returned to the pre-year 1700 borders.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Sweden tried several times to take Norway by military force every time it went wrong"
In 1716 and 1718. Aside from that was only half-assed attempts made. The struggle with Denmark over Skåne (Scania) was a much more important front. Norway was not as important. Not strategically, not economically, and it did not have a large manpower pool either. To this day its still the Nordic country with the smallest population.
In the early 1700s its main incomes came from timber and fish, so it was not that economically important. Trondheim had 2000 inhabitants - which doesn't make this town much larger than an average sized village today.
Norways importance rather came from being a diplomatic pond in a game with Denmark. If Norway was taken, then would Denmark be forced to be making peace with Sweden on generous terms. And territorial gains was just a bonus. And it would of course be nice if Norway did not threaten Göteborg - Swedens window towards the west. A harbor which could not be blocked by the Danes or the sound toll.
Otherwise did the Norwegian military not pose a great threat to Sweden. At least not its army.
Its captain Tordenskiold however, does however deserve respect for his bold raids that did cause much problems for Swedish shipping. A true naval hero. But even his large contributions to the war effort was not enough to change the larger strategic situation, except for one occasion - when his victory at Dynekilen ended all hopes of a Swedish conquest of Norway in 1716 when all supply ships were sunk so the Swedish army was forced to go back home to Sweden again.
"Sweden never managed to occupy Norway."
It had a union with Norway. And the 1718 was about to succed bringing down Norway to its knees. Fredrikstens fortress was only 1 week away from surrendering. And when that happened, then the road to Kristiania laid open, and the door to western Norway laid open for the numerically and qualitative superior Swedish army.
Also in the north had tides changed. Trondheims was under siege and running out of supplies, while the Swedish army began to get supplies as the weather finally had changed and turning the tides on the northern front.
If you would give me a time machine, and let me gamble over 1000 Euros, then I would say that Norway's defences would likely fail both in the north and south if the Swedish King had not died and the invasion of Norway had been aborted.
"During attacks on Norway, Sweden was drained of soldiers and resources."
The 1716 invasion did not cause any losses at all. And the 1718 invasion was not important either from a Swedish perspective. The Swedes nearly captured Trondheim in the autumn, but rain and floods prevented the Swedish army from crossing a river and going into the city. The Norwegian army was in a pathetic shape. They lost two fortresses along the way from Jemtland to Trondheim. The Norwegian troops fled and gave up almost without a fight, and the Swedish victory came at the price of only 1 man dead. While Norwegian losses was far higher.
Norway was as always a relativly peaceful country, while the Swedish army consisted of battle hardned veterans from fighting all over Europe the last 20 years. So unsurprisingly was the Swedish army better, and the Norwegians gave their enemy much respect for that reason. Perhaps even too much respect and caution, since they did not even put up a fight when they had excellent defensive positions.
Not much fighting happened in the north. But half of the Swedish army had to return home because the men became undernourished and sick. And when the war was over did the troops try to return home, but got caught in a snow storm that killed 3000 men. More men died from snow and cold than from all fighting with Norwegian troops. A perhaps a tragic fate for Jemtland which lost all its young male population. But it was not a big deal for the country as a whole.
The battle of Lund in 1676 killed almost twice as much Swedish troops as a comparison. Sweden lost nearly 50.000 men and women, soldiers and civilians at Poltava and Perevolotjna. So the losses against Norway was tiny by comparison.
"Charles XII of Sweden died in Norway"
Pure luck or misfortune depending on how you look at it.
It could just as well have happened earlier or later.
He was a man who was leading his men in the frontline. He was shot in the foot in Ukraine. And before that he was also under fire multiple times. He spent his 18th birthday on board a ship that sailed away to invade Denmark. And as soon as he landed on the Danish beach at Humlebæk he came under enemy fire.
He asked a major general what the whistling sounds around him was, and got the reply that it was enemy soldiers firing.
And Charles responded: "Good, this will hencefourth become my music". And just as he had said that, then a bullet flied past just next to his shoulder and hit one Lieutenant who died instantly.
Now Charles happened to die in Norway. Probably because of random Norwegian artillery shot that was fired in the dark and the Norwegian troops probably had no idea that they had managed to kill the Swedish King.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
USA only have one culture - and that is American culture. And I don't think it is much multi-ethnic either since everyone speaks the same language and have the same values, traditions and follow the same laws - with the Spanish-speaking minority as an exception, because for some strange reason do they seem unable to learn another language like everyone else..
People might be blacks, asians, caucasian, or native americans. But they are all english speakers and consider themselves to be Americans first and foremost.
Problems will always be involved with multi-culturalism as I sees it. Should torturing animals, marrying children, mutilating kids, and stoning gays, jews and atheists be legal?
If two groups in a society have very strong different view on those issues regarding moral values, laws and traditions you will be unable to make a compromise that make both sides happy. So you get a cultural clash, and mutual hatred between the two groups.
Dividing up the country could be a good idea so each half of the country can have the laws that they wish. But if you have to share your country with a people you despise, then you will have a cultural clash and perhaps even a civil war.
So multiculturalism is never a good thing.
Multiculturalism is much more than just eating pizza, noodles, fish&chips, hamburgers, and falafel.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2