Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Knowledgia" channel.

"Det är en ynkligt land" - Namnet på Danmarks nationalsång https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_er_et_yndigt_land 🤣😂🤣😂😂
2
it was a great power in the 1600s and 1700s
2
US bombing was quite ineffective. Only 9 Serbian tanks got destroyed... perhaps even less. And USA lost one stealth bomber to Serbian anti-aircraft.
2
Denmarks history since the middle ages have more been one of sad constant decline. Its days of glory (if we can call it that) was during the middle ages. Which is an extremely boring time period in history.
2
@Simon-d 12 of march did the Swedish troops march into the city and the Tsar Vasilj welcomed the Swedish troops and the population of Moscow celebrated the arrival of Swedish troops. And in the next year was Novgorod also taken by Swedish troops. The war in Russia was a half-assed military adventure, and the Swedes did not expect to have as much success as they did. Had Sweden put more effort into it, then there would have been a high likelyhood that a Swedish King would have been put on the Russian throne. A faction in the Russian civil war did openly support the idea. Gustavus Adolphus brother Filip was suggested to become the new Russian Tsar. But the boy was very young and his mother was very worried about him and prevented him from travel to Russia, and the terrified boy was probably not yet used for the idea either. This window of oppurtunity was short-lived, and soon the peace negotiations with Russia broke down. Sweden did conquer some important land from Russia, but did not get as much out from the peace deal as it could have done in earlier peace talks when it was suggested that Filip would become King of Russia and Sweden gained even more land than just Ingria and Kexholm county. Had Filip become King of Russia I guess it would not have changed much. The country was at chaos. And Filips mother was probably right when she said that it was barbaric and dangerous. The young boy would probably have been killed. So no big loss there. Even if Swedish vikings (Rus) created Russia do I think that religious and cultural differences would have made it a country too difficult to run for Swedish King. Especially for a 9 year old boy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Philip,_Duke_of_S%C3%B6dermanland
2
Don't worry people does not like China anyways. It gives out shark loans to other countries. Its human rights track record is shit. It tend to warmonger with all its neighbors (Tibet, India, Japan, The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Russia etc). It steals technologies from other countries. It spreads one disease after another. This dog eating nation that sells us made in China junk will not become the dominant world power during our lifetime. The regime needs censorship and repression only to keep this multi-ethnic empire together. The country is over-populated and ageing. Its nature is being polluted and exhausted. Beijing is filled with smog and causing massive public health problems. The country is dependent on foreign resources like oil, African food, and Australian coal. And without it will the Chinese economy be halted. It is a country filled with corruption scandals, in everything from poisoned milk to China putting skin from executed prisoners into skin cream they sell to Europe. The last example says really everything you need to know about the barbaric regime that rules China.
2
Norwegian warlords were the first ones to settle the island. Icelandic people got Norwegian blood in their veins. But also a small dose of Irish female blood. Probably because the vikings took a trip to Ireland and took some women with them before going up north to Iceland. Iceland was a place were Norwegian warlords would settle after they had become unpopular in their Norwegian homeland. For example after losing a battle against another Norwegian chieftain, and having to flee the country.
2
There is no such thing as Greece. There is only North Macedonia and south Macedonia.
2
Respect to Serbia for saying no this
1
@rudde7918 Sweden and Finland had most of the population and land mass of the empire. And coastline. And nearly all military units came from Sweden and Finland. So its an exaggeration to say that the loss of a small part of Swedens lands was equal to the end of Sweden as a great power. The resources of the empire was about the same before and after the war. So your views are quite ignorant. The main reason why Sweden declined after 1720 was rather because of corruption and incompetent leadership the next 150 years.
1
@rudde7918 Feels like I am debating flat earthers here
1
@erodinspikewing6917 Sweden did at most only have a few coastal villages doing som fishing when Sweden became an independent country in 500 years ago. Viking ships were long gone. They were never intended much for naval battles and other shiptypes had long since replaced them like Cogs. Sweden had no navy in 1523. The first ships had to be bought from Germany (the Hanseatic league). Because without ships it would have been impossible to siege into submission some Danish held castles in Sweden. And ships were also needed to simplify logistics and enable fast troop transports. Sweden did not have any naval traditions like Poland with towns like Gdansk or Hamburg or Lübeck like Germany or Copenhagen in Denmark. Stockholm was just a mere village. Sweden got its largest town in 1560 when Estonia with the town Reval joined the Swedish empire. The Swedish navy did therefore have to rely on farmers without any naval skills. So the quality for the seamanship of the Swedish navy was rather bad compared to that of other navies such as the Danish, Dutch, Hanseatic and English. The danes mocked the Swedish navy and said it consisted of "farmhands dipped in saltwater". And that is quite a fair description of the Swedish navy. "What held Sweden back is that foreign powers (primarily the English and Dutch) would never allow a single Scandinavian country to dominate, and so formed large coalitions with Denmark to stop the Swedish Empire when it tried to expand" Those naval powers were distant and often too busy with their own wars to really stop Sweden from taking over Denmark if it wanted to. However I think the loss of the Great Northern war was what put an end to the Swedish empire and its ambitions to dominate Northern Europe. It didn't need to end this way. Perhaps Swedens economy would have done well if we stayed out of two stupid unnecessary wars (the invasion of russia in 1741 and the Seven years war). And instead put our money and effort and the war that started succesfully in 1788 when russia was invaded and the door to St Peterburg laid open. Everything was going brilliantly until the Swedish nobility commited treason and the officers refused to fight the war. Sweden could then have nearly restored the old 1700s borders by taking back all the Baltic provinces. And later on would Sweden get ownership over Norway. So a Scandinavian superstate by the early 1800s would thereby have been possible. And with the colonization of Africa could Sweden have carved its way into global world politics, probably more than what little Belgium did by taking over big Congo. But all of this is of course just speculation. I don't own any crystal ball or time machine that could tell how things would play out.
1
@erodinspikewing6917 I think there is a big difference between a soldier and a hunter. And I think there is a big difference between a hunter and a guy who has never hold a rifle before in his life. There are lots of different skill levels in handling weapons, and also in knowledge how to behave in combat on a battlefield. How you should form a formation in battle, how you should behave in urban combat without getting yourself killed, etc. Not much is known about the leidung among historians, and how it was designed and so on. However the impression I get is that a fleet was set up for a short military campaign. And as soon as it was over was the fleet disbanded and fighters returned to their homes. The problem as I sees it with such a system is that the fleet stops to exist. All knowledge gained in battle is soon forgotten as the fleet is gone and the men who did the fighting have gotten old and died. This is why there was a big improvement when we one decided that we should also keep our navy in times of peace. And that we should draw lessons from the wars we have fought, and see what worked well, and what worked bad and what changes do we need to do to improve our navy so we can be more succesful in the next war? Changes to our tactics? changes to our weapons? Better routines on our ships? Better training? So I think there is a big difference between a navy, and some guys jumping into a boat driving off to a foreign land to plunder just for fun without any standardized military training, tactics or anything. Its like comparing a soldier to a hunter. Soldiers will normally be much more effective in combat. The difference between professional and unprofessional armies might have been small in Scandinavia in the 1500s. But what made Sweden such a powerful war machine on the battlefields of the 1600s and early 1700s was that we had driven our professionalism to our armies further than any other country in the world. Poland was country of winged hussars, brave knights in shining armor with enormous personal courage and iniative. But they lacked team spirit and well organized tactics. Sweden on the other hand lacked any glorious chivalry in their warfare. When you looked at the Swedish army over a battlefield of the 1600s you rather saw large formations of men moving in formation. It was like watching a big machine moving over the battlefield when you saw a big column of men swallowing polish knights in a very methodical and organized way with tactics organized into perfection. Sweden enemy Denmark also lacked the Swedish armys professionalism. And for most part it worked for them. In the wars of the 1500s was Denmark richer and stronger than Sweden. They laid close to Germany and had lots of money and could buy German mercenaries, which easily did cut Swedish farmers with no military training into pieces. Swedish troops were cheaper and could be effective in ambushes in forests, but overall were our troops inferior. Unless the war was long and lasted for years because then it was too costly to keep the mercenary troops, because they were much more expensive to use than giving farmboys a weapon. Denmark won victories, but they learned nothing from them. Because as soon as the war was over was all mercenary regiments disbanded, and all Danish farmers was sent home. Sweden on the other hand learned from their mistakes. The worst defeat in Swedish military history was the battle of Kirchholm in 1605 where a large Swedish force despite enormous numerical advantage got totally crushed by a tiny Polish force. This disaster was a wake up call to Sweden that many improvements to the Swedish military had to be done. And everything was improved, training, organisation, tactics everything. So the next wars we fought we improved our army even more, and in the next even more. And soon did we have a very combat experienced army and the best military machinery in northern Europe. So the next time Denmark would face Swedish troops we did kick their asses and in two wars was had Denmark been dealt catastrophic defeats. Denmark was 100 years behind Sweden in organisation because they had been lazy and relied on mercenaries to win their wars instead of trying to build an army for both times of peace and war with could bring knowledge, skills, tips and tricks further from one generation of soldiers to the next. From father to son. So therefore did Denmark always start their wars with no knowledge at all about tactics and such and made the same stupid mistakes as in previous wars. And while the Swedish soldiers had been training togheter for years and the men know each other since they came from the same town or village and had a great team spirit - could the same not be said about Denmarks troops. Denmark hired German men to fight for them and forced some Danish farmboys to become soldiers and all those men were now just thrown togheter into the same regiment, and none of these men knew each other before, they had not been training togheter with each other before the war... so of course their manouvers on the battlefield was always a bit more clumsier, less diciplined and the men did not have the same willingness to fight and die for the rest of the men in their own company as the Swedish troops. The Swedish troops had been friends with each other for years, while the men in the Danish regiments barely knew each other. And when it comes to navies do I likewise think there is hell of a difference between a professional navy that uses experienced seamen who spent 10-20 years at sea (like the Dutch or Danish navies) and a navy that uses mostly land based peasant with little or no maritime experience at all (like the Swedish navy of the 1500s and 1600s). And I also think there is a big difference between the permanent navy Gustav Vasa created, and the viking fleets that was used for small military missions that might last a few months or years and then was disbanded. Gustav Vasas navy of the 1500s often used farmboys on galley ships. Such ships used much manpower. But on the other hand was peasants cheap compared to experienced professionals. And using galley ships was excellent for the shallow waters around Stockholm, Finland and russia where big ships could not sail without a risk of getting stuck or sink. And sometimes it was also an advantage to use oars. Later on would Sweden build some of the biggest battleships in Europe with much firepower such as Mars, and very much technological cutting edge. But despite that was it extremely uncommon that ships tried to fight each other with cannons and sink the other ship. Usually did ships fire the cannons on each other and then did men try to rush over to the other ship with swords and pistols and trying to take it over. Because it was funnier to steal an enemy ship than to sink it. And sinking an enemy ship was usually very difficult back then. Cannons had a very bad range... probably with an accuracy of less than 300 meters. and a big ship made out of wood do usually not want to sink quickly in the first place. It was not until the late 1600s it started to become common to try to sink enemy ships with guns. And by then had the Swedish navy become much more professional. However before then was there not much difference between a sea battle and a land battle. As ships were filled with many hundreds of soldiers from the army that was used for trying to take over the enemy ships. "The general agreement among historians that Sweden had far superior naval forces to Poland and Germany" Nope. Had you asked someone to rank the best navies in the baltic sea in year 1520 when Sweden became indepedent I think they would rank Lübeck as number 1 best. Denmark as no 2. Poland with its rich big cities that made Stockholm looklike a village by comparison as number 3. Some serious attempts were also later on made to build a navy by poland during the wars King Sigismund waged against Gustavus Adolphus. And there was a big fear that the Spanish navy would come and help catholic Poland invade Sweden. And to combat this threat was the ship Vasa build along with other warships. Poland was a rich superpower back in those days and culturually, economically and technologically superior to Sweden in almost every way. And after the defeat at Kirchholm in 1605 was it probably few people who believed that Sweden would ever become a great power. "Also, the point about the English and Dutch navies is blatantly false" Sweden did not exactly sail to America or the pacific on a regular basis like those fleets did, so of course we did have less experience. And even if the Swedish merchant navy was impressivly strong by the late 1600s during Swedens height of its power, would I still say that 1000, 2000 or maybe 3000 merchant ships in the Swedish merchant marine is quite a tiny number compared to the 28.000 ships strong Dutch merchant navy of the same time. When the Great Northern War began did Charles XII have an impressive fleet of 49 warships. However that should be compared to 172 British warships and 118 Dutch ships. With navies with sailors that were more experienced than ours. One could of course make a few advantages out of the Swedish system, like it was fast and easy to mobilize Swedish sailors and quickly make them ready for battle while for Denmark you first had to transport them from Norway to Denmark and then put them on a ship before the Swedish navy cut off the communications between Norway and Denmark. Sweden also had an uniqely good access to building materials for its navy. And Swedish warships were often very well maintained and could often last for many decades. There are for example ships that Gustaf III built that remained in service for 80 years! I think it is extremely rare that ships lasted anywhere near that long in other navies. Especially in the russian navy that use spruce trees for their ships instead of oak - which resultet in extremely poor quality ships.
1
Look at this video.
1
"Basically serbian propaganda" Nope. I think he tries to be neutral. As a westerner the knowledge of this topic is limited and thus most people prefer a neutral stance. And you take neutrality as being pro-serbia, which is not. I personally blame Serbia for the war and sugarcoat things less. But nevertheless do I understand why people carefully avoid strong statements on this. Its not easy to access good information here in the west. "I am sick and tired of foreigners patronizing the Balkan nations" Its easy for us who are done with our state building process to look down on other parts of the world which have not come as far. I can see why people want independence. The EU have made me realize that independence and democracy for my country cannot be taken for granted. I do endorse civic nationalism. But ethno-nationalism is something I mostly only got negative feelings about... black lives matter in USA and muslims in Western Europe only cause hatred and divide. They put their own groups self-interest above the interest of their country. So I only got contempt for this movement. But if foreigners and racial minorities act loyal to their country then I have nothing against them. The tragedy of the Balkans is that you got similar language, culture, history and everything. But yet you kill each other. You have a nice climate and beaches, but instead of enjoying life you fight wars. Your countries are smaller than the Swedish province I live in. But still wars are fought for this tiny plot of land. And the land is not even holy like Jerusalem or containing oil - nope. It was a poor Ex-Communist country back in the 1990's, and wars were fought getting control over poor areas. A meaningless war in my opinion. Perhaps a breakup was inevitable as people in the comment section say. But why wasn't it then done peacefully at least. When Norway broke up with Sweden in 1905, it didn't lead to a war. And today are relations between the two countries very good. Sweden had peace for 200 years now. But will all Nordic countries form a Scandinavian country together? I doubt that. We Swedes ruled Finland for 800 years. We gave them our laws, our religion, and the most modern state apparatus in Europe back in the 1600's. Our school system and railway system is the same. The finns were treated as equals when they were part of the same Kingdom. They had their seats in the Swedish parliament. Swedish troops fought to defend Finland against Russia, and Finnish troops fought for Sweden. But the language difference is still great. Finlands language got more in common with Asian languages than it got with European ones. So all efforts winning the hearts and minds of Finns for 800 years have been wasted. They do not want to become Swedes again after they have declared independence from Russia. And as a Swede I cannot blame them. I would not want to be ruled by another country that speaks another language either. No matter how rich, sophisticated and kind they might be. So if 800 years of kind occupation did not work to turn Finns into Swedes, then I am not surprised Austro-Hungrian empire got torn apart either with it much greater cultural barriers. And the EU project of merging 30 European countries from all 4 corners of Europe just seems like insanity created by historically ignorant people. "I'm disgusted by Serbs who fail to condemn the politics of Slobodan Milošević" I agree. Not all Serbs are bad people. But those who cannot even condemn this warmonger, dictator and murderer then I got nothing more to talk about with them. They have a rotten moral compass. They are the reason why I dislike that country. "After WWII ended, German enclaves in the east disappeared" The German world fell apart already in 1918. German was until pretty recently having almost the same status as English on the Balkans, since it was the language of the Austrohungrian empire and all small countries that sprung up from that empire had to learn it. So if Czechs, Hungarians and Yugoslavs wanted to speak with each other they could use German. But after the empire fell apart and also Germany got mutilated in the next war - there was very little reason to keep on using this language. And the German speaking minority got kicked out from many places in Europe after WW2. A typical thing of a fallen empire I guess. Personally do I think that countries with provinces with a large foreign minority should try to be respectful and sensitive to that minorities demand and don't try to shave its will down their will with force. France is granting Alsace-Lorraine much independence, but the province is still a part of France despite the majority of the population are Germans. And same goes for Åland, which have a 90% Swedish population but is part of Finland. So ethnical conflicts and tensions can be minimized and war being avoided. Personally do I think that both Åland and Alsace should change owners. But the 2nd best alternative is probably much local self-determination.
1
@antemesinMisericorde "You say all six nations of ex-Yugoslavia have the same culture, what you basically mean is, Serbian culture is seen as the norm. Otherwise, let me tell you, there is no difference between Scots, Welsh and the English." There is an British culture and there is an English culture. They are closely linked. Same goes for Croatia and Yugoslavia. And that makes this conflict seem so unnecessary and tragic. The cultural differences are so small that reasonable people should have been able to work them out. At least most of them. It would have been another thing if you shared your country with ISIS... then it would have been more difficult to combine pork, beer, short skirts, and music with the fundamentalist values of the other half of the population. So I would see why a failed state would have been unavoidable in such a case. Not all countries end up in civil wars like Syria, Iraq and such. Switzerland isn't having Italians, Germans and French trying to kill each other. So sometimes I do think that cultural differences can be worked out. "Croatia and Slovenia are accused of sabotaging federal financing of which they were actually largest contributors" I agree with you here. I can also admit my ignorance about Eastern Europe in the 1990's. Richer part of countries suddenly did not want to pay for poorer parts. Richer Czechia broke off from poorer Slovakia, so Czechoslovakia became two countries. And Yugoslavia also got torn up. Personally I do not see economic plus and minus between provinces as a problem, since every country haves them. But on the other hand, if you do not feel solidarity with that particular part of the country you get a problem... Germany's unwillingness to pay for Greece economic problems in one such example. So would you like to work your ass off each month and put all your salary into a bank account which you share with your lazy unemployed drunk uncle who constantly like to over-spend money? - Personally I can understand if people have a bit mixed feelings about this idea. "Serbian culture is seen as the norm" All I am saying is that it is related to the other cultures on the Balkans. Just as it would be tragic if the English, Irish, Scots, Wales, Canadians, Americans, and Australians would fight a war against each other. Of course do all those nationalities have their own sub-group of British culture. They are similar but different.
1
Indeed. Sweden during the 1600s and 1700s is a more interesting period than the viking age.
1
Well I don't like viking culture or things inspired by it (Harry Potter, Tolkien) so maybe that's why.
1
What is the name of the music? It sounds nice.
1
And Serbia can only tough when it is protected by Russia
1
Serbia would have been strong by now if hadn't been so busy with warmongering with all its neighbors- Austro-Hungrians, Croats, Bosnians, Albanians and others. Perhaps the country would have been a peaceful place with a good economy and a nice standard of living. But instead it is poor and do not have the best diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe. It can drive around its old soviet junk weapons which gets more outdated for every year. The country is gliding more and more towards irrelevance.
1
@Ghost Ghost " The crusader kingdoms lasted in palestine and syria for 200 years" I was not talking about them. I was talking about Jerusalem. "they never came back" A few stayed in the middle east. But they were a minority and too few to permanently keep Jerusalem in Christian hands. "after the Muslim reconquered those places many latin settlers with time converted to islam" Christians were the majority population in Lebanon up until the 1970s, until muslims started to have crazy birthrates and outnumber them. Same thing have happened in places in the Balkans where orthodox serbs have strongly outnumbered the muslims. But because of crazy birthrates have the muslims now become majority in many places. And many Christians have also been kicked out from the MENA-countries with violence the last century or so. With the wars in Algeria, Lebanon and the genocide against Armenia. "the leavent was much richer land in resources and agriculture and trade than their own home" Going to the holy land was an economic loss for most crusaders. To a modern person this is hard to grasp. All crusaders had their own motives, but the most common was a genuine will to liberate the city of God for Christianity and get forgiveness for your own sins. And after the crusade has succeed or failed - then did like 80-90% of the men go home within the next 2 years. The mission had been accomplished and God got his city and the person got his sins forgiveness, and guarding the city was someone else's problem they thought. Most people wanted to go home and see their families and rich people needed to go back to secure their power in the homeland and such. So very few stayed in the middle east. And personally I don't think it was much economic profit to be made to start a farm there. Furthermore was it a dangerous place so I guess you needed lots of religious dedication to start such a project. If money was your greatest wish, then I would say that it would be much easier to make money in Europe. And a warlord could make more profits by attacking a weak neighbor than launching a costly expedition far away. So the economic reason for the crusades were weak. And the religious reasons were strong. As I said earlier, this is hard to grasp for a modern non-religious person. And in a way do think this type of war is awful, brutal and cruel. Vikings just wanted to steal peoples property and then leave them alone. But the crusaders wanted to convert people. And control what other people think and how they lived. They did not make swift raid and then sail away. No they were planning to do a permanent military occupation of an area until it had been converted. And the Christians did not kill people left and right because enjoyed murdering people. No they murdered people out of love. If people did not convert they got murdered. And the Christians saw this as an act of love. By killing a sinner you did him a favor. If he died he could not commit sins and burn in hell for them. This is of course a weird wicked reasoning. But that's how people back then thought. This is how Swedish, Danish and German crusaders in Finland, Russia and the Baltics thought. And I would guess that crusaders in the holy land thought the same.
1
@gustav331 There are many things I agree with you with and some where you are just wrong. With Torstenssons war you completely ignore that Denmark was the warmongering part in this war that constantly tried to stab Sweden in the back because it hated to see Sweden being succesful in the 30 years war and Denmark constantly offered to join the war on the side of Swedens enemies. So to neutralize that threat did Sweden invade Denmark at the first good opurtuinity to destroy the Danish enemy in the rear that threatened Swedish supply lines in Northern Germany and threatened Sweden with a land grab. "The Scanian War was started by the Swedes when they invaded Denmark's ally" Sweden did not want a war, as its army was in a terribly bad shape because the nobles had given themselves tax cuts that left the army underfunded. Instead did the Swedish corrupt nobles hope that Sweden could gain security by an alliance with a powerful country like France that no one would dare to go to war against. And so would peace be secured. But that plan did not work out well. Because France had a warmonger King that dragged Sweden into a meaningless war against its will. Sweden had a reputation of being impossible to defeat on the battlefield after its victories in the 30 years war, Russia, Denmark and Poland. But now was that reputation by a silly tiny unimportant battle at Fehrbellin where a "Swedish" force (that consisted of 2/3 Germans) was defeated. And that propaganda victory encouraged half of Europe to declare war on Sweden when they saw that Sweden was possible to beat on the battlefield. The next disaster was that half the navy was lost in a big storm. Everything seemed lost, until the Swedish King took the bold decision to take all power back from the useless nobles and won the battle at Lund - and that in turn doomed all Danish attempts to retake Scania. "it was Sweden that declared war and re-invaded Denmark in 1658." An excemption from the rule. And yes Charles X was a warmonger King and quite reckless. The march across the belts could just as well have ended with a disaster for Sweden if the weather had been slightly warmer and the entire army would have fallen through the ice and drowned while Sweden was at war with entire Northern Europe. "The Great Northern War was a Danish victory." The King of Denmark betrayed its promises of friendship with the Swedish King and declared war on his cousin. But Denmark was knocked out of the war in just a few weeks after the Swedish landing at Humlebäck. Then was a peace signed. But in 1710 did Denmark break that peace deal, due to lack of honour, and much cowardice to not dare to attack Sweden before the Swedish defeat at Poltava. Anyways the Danish army was defeated at the battle of Helsingborg in 1710 by a Swedish force that half consisted of poorly trained reservist units. So even after Poltava was Sweden still a superior force to other armies in the world. It would also prove that in Gadebusch in 1712. Denmarks army was not so good. But its navy was. And Tordenskiold did with his victory at Dynekilen doom Swedens 1716 invasion of Norway. Sweden tried again in 1718 and would probably have won if not Charles XII had died at Fredriksten. But don't take my words for it. This is what Geir Pollen wrote in his book about the siege of Trondheim, and said that the Norwegian troops only had 2 weeks of food left when the Swedish troops abandoned the siege after the Swedish King died. And the fortress at Fredriksten would likely have fallen after 3 days due to food shortages if the Swedish King had not died. And once Fredriksten fell would there be nothing that stood between the Swedish army and the conquest of Oslo and western Norway. And with the additional fall of Trondheim would that be the final nail in the coffin for Danish rule over Norway. Denmark would have been forced to make peace on Swedish terms and hand over Norway or parts of it to Sweden. But the new King of Sweden was a German who did not care about the war. He just wanted to be King so he abandoned the Swedish invasion on day 1 at the throne. And that stupid move only prolonged the war and gave unfavorable peace terms for Sweden. But he did not care. He was a lazy King that cared more about sex and pleasure than doing his job as a King. "Denmark was clever enough to not involve itself in more wars in the 1700s, unlike Sweden, which had the most incompetent and corrupt government in all of Europe between 1721 and 1772." Here I will actually agree with you. And I hope more Swedes would share this point of view. Because you are absolutly correct. It have wrongly been seen as a period of peace and progress. But nothing could be further from the truth. Sweden did start two stupid wars (against russia and prussia) and lost them both and ended up with a national debt that was worse than that after the Great Northern War. And while everyone complains about Charles XII's costly wars nobody criticise the wasteful stupid spending by our useless noblemen republic. The Great Northern war at least a necessary war and an existential defensive war. While the two wars that our nobles started was dumb offensive military adventures. Charles XII was no warmonger because he never started any new war. But our noblemen on the other hand did set the world on fire and started new wars. Had our noblemen had one braincell should they have learned the lesson from Denmark in 1658 - DO NOT START A NEW WAR WHEN YOUR ARMY IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE. But our nobles never learned. The disasterous Scanian war was their fault. So was the war against Russia in 1741. And the war against Prussia. The war against russia in 1788 started like a success story but ended with a failure because the noblemen who were officers in the Swedish army did mutiny and commited treason against the Swedish King. So the war never became a victory because of their fault. And it was also the noblemens fault that Sweden lost Finland to russia. I also think Denmarks downfall should much be blamed on its nobles unwillingness to allow the creation of large standing army consisting of Danish farmboys. But instead did Denmark quickly recruit German mercenaries for the wars it fought... but that army lacked the cumulative experience of a standing army that had gathered knowledge from decades of war. And the fighting morale was also low in such regiments, as everyone in this quickly mobilized and poorly trained unit did not know each other. While the Swedish troops all knew each other within the regiment after years of combat training and drills togheter. This is what made standing armies like the Tercious in Spain and the Swedish army so superior. Denmark would later on try to correct this error but by then it was already too late and it had lost many provinces to Sweden.
1
@gustav331 See that you have wasted much time writing. Thats good. Kremtroll. I am happy that Archer finally have arrived to deliever christmas gifts. Your work is pretty unglorious. I have more respect for the under-class that are dying in your criminal bullshit war. Your side will lose.
1
the proto EU
1
Its had the best government economic administration and the best most modern military for its time. So the empire was both viable and effiecent with handling its own resources. It was rather its enemies that wasted resources in an ineffiecent way that got wasted in war after war during the 1600s.
1
No civilization (except for maybe the Portuguese) could compare with the vikings in navigation, shipbuilding and seamanship and maritime technology. But when it comes to land warfare would I say that the vikings were not very high technological. They did fight with axes and not with swords which were considered more advanced weapons. The vikings did not have those swords because they were too expensive and rare for most people to have. Ulfberht swords made from Indian high-quality steel were considered luxury items the same way as Ferrari luxury cars today. Expensive as f**k, and the ultimate object to display power, wealth and prestige. A great thing for a diplomatic gift. The vikings loved those swords, and considered them the best weapons which could be had, but they were always rare. Viking tactics was based on surprise attacks on villages - so their enemies could not make a well prepared defensive position and call upon reinforcements. They tactics were hit and run. Which also makes me believe that they were not military strong. Had their military strength been superior to anyone else, then I think they would have stayed and occupied the land. And they would not been avoiding attacking betterly defended positions and relying so much on surprise attacks to avoid getting into battle against an opponent which at least was able to defend themselves.
1
It was a place with dirty steam locomotives those golden years. And when Yugoslavia broke up you could see refugees fleeing on wagons on red Belarus tractors every day. And I cannot say that the villages looked rich there. It wasn't like seeing a place that looked similar to Seattle or Amsterdam exactly..
1
Alex Jones of the Balkans
1
Charles did not make it crash and burn. Had he not been killed in battle, then his plans would likely had come true - Fredriksten was about to fall, and Trondheim was on its last legs of giving up and with that would Norway about to fall into Swedish hands. Denmark would then have been forced to leave the war. Swedish troops in Norway could then be sent to Germany and force the weak Hanoverian army to give back Stade and Verden. And Britain would realize that its countrys best interest stood in opposition to Hanover - the home of King George. Swedish troops could also be sent to the unprotected Baltics and retake all harbours there. That would cut off all food supplies shipped to Finland. And without the food would the Russian army be forced to leave Finland. And with that would all lands but St Petersburg have been retaken by Swedish forces.
1
Because they won world war 2 and took it from Germany. Russia wanted "compensation" from Germany for the war - which meant stealing land. A problem was that Poland was sitting between Germany and Russia so this could not be done easily. But Stalin was a problem solver. He just stole polish land instead and kicked out all Poles. And then Poland got German land as compensation. And all poles got to move in and all German were kicked out. Neither the Germans or the Poles were happy about this solution. But since Russia had the biggest army, could they say might makes right. End of story.
1
@gillesaboubechara2978 After all Germans had been kicked out and the city had been turned into heaps of rubble did Russian settlers move in. And Königsberg became Kaliningrad. The place became an important naval base for the Russian navy and a place where Russia could station nuclear missiles in close proximity to the west. So there are military reasons Russia have for not wanting to give back this place. And the Russians are the largest group of people living there
1
@gillesaboubechara2978 It was not certain that the Baltic states would become independent at all after the Berlin fell. Russia had sent Russian settlers to the Baltics to Russify the area and take it over. And Latvia was the Silicon valley of the Warsaw pact countries with all of the East Bloc high tech industries such as computers and aviation located there. So of course was the Russians not willing to let it go. But the Russians were not majority of the population in those areas. In Kaliningrad things were different. So it remained a part of Russia. The map might look strange. But so what? Alaska is a part of USA and not part of Canada. Gibraltar and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain despite it doesn't share a land border with the homeland.
1
@greenskydiver427 Well the nazis only took back the land that Germany had lost in the Versailles peace despite they had won world war 1 on the Eastern front.. so I guess that also their Polish claims were equally justified as the Russians. 🙄 Your argument is equally dumb as a German nazi and sounds exactly the same.
1
Only the first 4 are note worthy IMO
1