Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Why did Prussia bully Denmark? - The Schleswig Wars Explained" video.

As soon as professional armies became fashionable did Denmark become a backwater in power politics. During the middle ages was it truely a military powerhouse, and not just during the viking age, but also during the baltic crusades with its modern army and large country when the rest of europe was divided. Denmark also had a large population - but was hit the hardest of the black death of all the scandinavian countries because of its high population density, and the result was a shift of balance of power in scandinavia away from Denmark. During the middle ages it fielded one of the largest if not the largest navy in europe. It was also early to form a national navy - earlier than England and Sweden. But it never really gained any remarkable land forces. As a strong continental power it was easy to come into contact with the European mercenary markets and hire germans to fight Denmarks wars and the strong Danish nobility refused to donate any of their farmers to the military for selfish economic reasons. So Denmark never managed to build any army traditions and a professional army until very lately - but by then it was already too late and Sweden had already stolen Denmarks crown jewel provinces such as Scania, Gotland, Halland and Bohuslän.
21
I guess they mostly have themselves to blame... the general pattern since the 1600s was to declare war on sweden and then lose it along with lots of land. The war of 1645 was the result of many years od Denmark trying to stab Sweden in the back when it was involved in the 30 years war. In 1658 it declared war on Sweden and lost catastrophically. And neither the Scanian war or the war in 1700 were any successes either.
15
@thanhhoangnguyen4754 I think Denmark made some stupid foreign policy decisions. Christian II pissing off Swedens population so it declared independence from Denmark was unnecessarily provocative. The Danish participation in the 30 years war was poorly handled and the country lost the war. And its attempts to backstab Sweden during the 30 years war by offering to broker peace in the war (in a biased anti-swedish manner, and even secretly offer Swedens enemies to join their side in the war after the first swedish military defeat did anger Sweden a lot). This unnecessary behaviour led to Sweden unexectadly moving its troops out from Germany when the fighting there had cooled down a bit, and then sweden quickly moved its army in Germany up to invade Denmarks heartlands and dealt the country a crushing blow - and multiple provinces had to be given up to Sweden in the peace deal. The next disaster of 1658 was even worse. It was a war Denmark started against Sweden while Sweden was busy fighting wars against Poland and Russia... and many other countries angry with Sweden also wanted to join in - Netherlands, Denmark, Brandenburg, Austria etc. A good time to start a war with Sweden one might think. There was only one problem. And that was that the Danish army was sh*t and had been badly underfunded for a long time. While the Swedish army was considered the best in Europe at that time. So when the Swedish troops left the war in Poland and marched towards Denmark instead did things become a disaster for Denmark. So one could on one hand just feel that they deserve what they did get. But on the other hand it does feel sad to see a maritime empire go down so pathetically. It was once a great power. Norwegian vikings were great seafarers and explorers who found Iceland, Greenland and America. Swedish vikings were great traders who founded Ukraine and Russia. And the Danish vikings were the most succesful warriors who managed to take control of England, Northern France and northern Germany. It was a great power during the middle ages with the most power navy in Europe and it made crusades in the Baltic. And Danish Kings ruled over the largest country in medieval Europe with their control over Denmark, Norway and Sweden/Finland. They controlled the access to the Baltic sea through the sound which was by far the most important economic zone for maritime trade for England and the Netherlands during the 1600s and 1700s - far more important than their trade in the pacific or America. And Denmark did also have much more success as a colonial power in Africa and India than Sweden. And its east India company was also more succesful. It was a maritime power with much potential but they wasted their chances. Which is a bit sad for a Scandinavian. Copenhagen is a beautiful city with lots of statues and old buildings. It is really a maritime capitol.
10
Denmark will rise again!
4
@thanhhoangnguyen4754 I think the natural place would be Gothenburg as it is the middle between Norway, Denmark and Sweden and have the largest harbor in Scandinavia which is used for all three countries for shipping most of their goods. Oslo is also pretty close so it could be used just as well. In the past could one have argued Stockholm would have been the natural choice as it was in the middle of the Baltic sea surrounded by Finland, Ingria, the Baltics, Danzig, Pomerania and Sweden which all were controlled by Sweden. However today all this is forgotten, and most Swedes today do not even realize that Sweden used to be a great naval power in the past. However to tie togheter all those areas scattered around the Baltic sea and to be able to send troops to defend them it was necessary to have a strong navy. Denmark capitol would perhaps have been the more natural choice back in the middle ages when it was the largest and strongest country in Scandinavia. But those days are now gone. Personally do I not care about Stockholm. And I bet most Swedes don't as they don't live there.
3
Denmark is one of the largest countries on the planet. In terms of geographic size, it's bigger than Germany, Turkey, and France — combined. And if russia is super power, then Denmark is a super power as well. With its enormous soft power through Lego, Aqua and beer and the viking influence it left on England, France and Germany. It is a country that invented a national flag before anyone else did. It is also controlling the entrance to the strategically and economically important Baltic sea. The country is rich and have the happiest people on the planet.
3
@TheLoyalOfficer Well the Danish vikings ruled over England, Normandy and northern Germany and had much power projection over the rest of scandinavia and ireland during the middle ages so it was without a Great power in the past. And later on during the middle ages did it have the largest navies in Europe. And it was a country that was one of the first countries to transition away from the tiny statehoods of feudalism and become a unified country, and Denmarks flag which is the oldest in Europe is an example of that. The country had a large modern military during the medieval times, and it could even mount permanent military expeditions in far away lands like the Baltics, during the Baltic crusades - which few countries had the military muscles to do, as short-term raiding seasons like viking raids were the normal thing before. Now the Danes instead did permanent military occupations of enemy lands that could last for years, so that the heathens could not just switch back to their old beliefs as soon as the christian enemy warriors had sailed home. And during the Kalmar union did Denmark rule over the largest country in Europe in size. And as rulers of Denmark, Norway, Sweden (and Finland) could the Danish Kings project enormous amounts of power in northern Europe and even challange and overpower the powerful Hanseatic league.
3
@fatherofhistory Denmark had been succesfully fighting the Germans (Lübeck) before back in the 1500s. Denmark used to be stronger. And Germany used to be weaker and divided. I can imagine that this old worldview still laid in many peoples heads both in Denmark and Germany in the 1800s. But things was of course about to change... Denmark had also not really tried its military muscles much for real since the Scanian war and the Great Northern war. It did of course do some brief fighting in the Napoleonic war. But not much major conflicts in the mid and late 1700s. So it was perhaps hard to get a realistic exceptation what the Danish armed forces could achieve. The country did not looklike much on the map like today. But it was a rich and densly populated piece of land. Much more rich, powerful and populated than the much bigger country Norway (at least until Norway discovered oil in the 1970). So Denmark was quite strong compared to most German states back in the 1500s. But things did of course change over time. Saxony and Brandenburg had industrialized and improved their buraucracies. Brandenburg-Prussia had gained more lands and a larger population. While Denmark had lost its wealthiest provinces to Sweden (Scania, Gotland, Halland, Blekinge etc). And Norway was going its own way after the Napoleonic wars. So now was Denmark a small country on its own. And it had to rely on the help of other great powers to feel secure against its most powerful enemies.
3
Denmark belongs to that club of small countries that was great powers in the past. Like Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands.
2
@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