Talk:Great Northern War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutral Poland[edit]

Info was removed by Skäpperöd, 19 Jan 2010. I don't know why he did that. Poland was neutral at this point. See e.g. http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C18/gnw.htm "Initially when the war started Augustus of Saxony determined to just participate in the war as head of Saxony only. He did not enjoy the support of the Poles and Lithuanians for his war. So during the 1700 the Saxon army was based and operated in neutral Poland in its campaign against the Swedes. Understandably a situation that could cause some problems which indeed it proved so to do. For following the successful elimination of Denmark from the war and the battle of Narva in 1700 the Swedes turned to knocking Saxony out of the war. Unfortunately this meant invading Poland as that was where the Saxon army was. " szopen 77.115.121.252 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the war with Poland started 1701? At least according to "Sveriges Krig 1448-1630" it did / Imonoz (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First it says[edit]

First it says "Sweden had one of the most prfessional armies on the continent" then it says "Sweden did not have good equipment or training" isn't that a bit strange? I mean how could the army be proffesionall without good training?

Ohkay. Just tell me. No Finns involved, no terrain that is subsequently considered Finnish terrain???

There was no Finland back then, it was just a part of Sweden as any other of the lands of Sweden!

Was Poland officially (At elast initially) involved? I'read many times that Augustus started the war to make his power in Poland stronger, but since he had no right to do it on behalf on Poland, then technically (at least initially) Poland was not belligerent and many nobles actually believed in it which had catastrophical consequences. I won;t make any changes on artilce sicne i am not sure on this, but can someone answer this ?Szopen 14:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, when Poland was involved? The war started without Poland - Poland was officially neutral for quite long time, until Charles insisted on dethronisation of August. Poland didn't wanted war with Charles (Neither Sweden) - the decision to invade Poland seems to me personal decision made by Charles. Comments? I am not sure how to put that into the article. Szopen 15:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Britannica import Johann Patkul for details. The original allies in the war were Frederic IV of Denmark, August II of Poland, and Peter I of Russia. They concluded a union in 1697, when the 16-year-old Charles ascended the throne in Sweden. The union of three powers was formalized in 1699. The war started in 1700 with August's invasion of Swedish Latvia. I'm not sure if August acted in his capacity of Polish or Saxon ruler, however. --Ghirlandajo 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, August II of SAXONY, whch was also king of Poland. Poland, as country, was not signatory of the treaty and officially was neutral. Szopen 09:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


So, finally: POland was neutral in the beginning.

The relevant treaties I was able to find:

1698 August takes whole Inflanty nobility (asked by Patkul) into protection, but acting as king of Saxony. 1698 24 March - alliance Saxony-Denmark 1699 12 November- alliance Denmark, Saxony, Russia. Later in addition Brandenburg.

In 1700 Danes and Saxons attacked Sweden, quickly joined by Russia.

POLAND WAS NEUTRAL. In 1701 even Polish senate sent congratulatory letter to Charles offering themselves as mediators and proposign peace between Saxony and Sweden. Charles agreed on the condition August would be dethronised. Poland refused and Charles attacked Poland, and only in that moment Poland stopped to be neutral. Szopen 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE AGAIN, but I hope for the final time: the fact that August was king of Poland didn't mean anything. August had no right as king Poland to start wars. He started a war as king of Saxony and only Saxony was allied with Denmark and Russia, not Poland. Poland was officially and formally neutral until CHarles XII break that (he didn't care about such nuances) and invaded Poland. No Polish units attacked Sweden until than.

I don't know how to explain that more clearly. "alliances of the king as the head of state are binding for the state he rules" are not applying here, sicne Augustus was signing the alliance as the head of _Saxony_, not Poland. Poland and Saxony were two different separate countries, tied ONLY by the person of the monarch. He could not sign alliance as king of Poland without the approval of parliament. He could not start a war without approval of parliament. Hence, the Poland was oficially and formally NEUTRAL, though the king certainly wanted to put Polish parliament at the wall and hoped that parliament would have no choice and declare the war on Sweden. 150.254.130.180 13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that you think that Finland didn't exist when for example Johan III called himself Grand Duke of Finland in the 16th century... And Per Brahe was the Governor General of Finland in the 17th century. The name Finland has been used in its present meaning at least from the 15th century, before that it was used of Finland-Proper. Finns were involved in the war as were Swedes and it can be said that Finns suffered more from the war since Finland was occupied during it. --88.114.235.214 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually true that Finland did not exist (as a country) it exsisted as a region of Sweden and as a dukedom, so there could of cause be a duke of Finland without there is a country called it (there was also a duke of Kalmar, however Kalmar was hardly a country wouldnt you agree?) Sneaking Viper (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

I think the whole article is a little too Swedish orientated, maybe fair enough since Sweden is involved in everything, but there are a whole lot of other players involved too that is not even mentioned.

This stunning series of victories was generally due to the training of the army, which was far more professional than most continental armies, and could maintain much higher rates of fire due to constant training with their firearms.

Where does this come from? I’m not disputing it, it might even be true. I’m simple asking where does it come from?

  • I've also heard that is a fact but can't find a source. I have found sources that talk about Charles as a military genius and describe the army as invincible up until a small defeat by the French(?).
Well, Swedes were quite often losing the battles in XVII century, unless you are talking only about CHarles XII? Szopen 13:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gwynne Dyer mentions this in his book War. He notes that the Swedes enjoyed an advantage from their professionalism, until the other powers caught up to the new innovation (by doing it too). 65.92.96.58 8 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

However, Sweden was unable to support and maintain her army when the war was prolonged and the costs of warfare could not be passed to occupied countries.

Well does this not apply to everybody? Why is this a something special for Sweden?

  • I do remember hearing that on the history channel. I'm still trying to find a source for this but my understanding was Sweden was already in money troubles before the war and needed to rely on her territories to carry the burdern of her wars. Once that no longer happened Sweden was no longer able to finance this war or any other and it declined with the rise of Russia. I don't think the sentence is neccesary to the article. Here is the closest I can find so far, "arles XI, allied Sweden with France (ruled by Louis XIV) in the early 1670s, since Sweden, a small and not overly wealthy country, no longer had the resources to defend its Baltic conquests without subsidies. In 1675 the Swedes, as French allies, lost a battle at Fehrbellin to forces of Frederick William, elector of Brandenburg, putting an end to myths of Swedish invincibility." its from the History channel on the History of Sweden.
    • According to the history text books I read in high school(no idea how much faith to put in them :) the Swedes had a saying regarding constant warfare - Krig för sig själva or War feeds itself, and the basic premise for that saying was that the swedes constantly sought war because maintaining a professional army in peace time was a crippling expense. Therefore the Swedes depended upon conquered territories to feed and pay for their armies, and therefore a stagnation in the string of conquests would hurt the professional swedish army more than the semi-professional/levvied armies of Denmark/Norway, Russia and Poland. Abel29a 00:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of being at war to in order to gain the resources for paying the army is to some extent true, but IIRC from an earlier era. Charles XI reordered both the army and finances of Sweden after 1679. The main reason for this being a Swedish policy was because of the state's very limited resources. It's not really relevant for this article, but Charles XI was still a minor until 1675, so it was his governors that allied Sweden to France in the early 1670s. JA 2006-10-13


Denmark was defeated in the summer of 1700 in what was to be the first major battle of the war, and so badly beaten that she could not participate in the war for a number of years.

Hmm, there was no battle between Sweden and Denmark in 1700!! So how can this be the first major battle of the war? Peace was made between Denmark and Sweden’s allied Holstein-Gottorp (not Sweden directly) guarantied and helped by no fewer than England, Netherlands, Lüneburg-Celle and Hanover, before any battle happend. Part of this treaty says they may not support the enemies of Sweden (which lasted for 9 years). That is how Denmark left the Great Nordic war in 1700 not because she was military defeated (which certinally could have happend if there actually was a battle/war). There war minor engagement in Holstein-Gottorp.

  • It should probably read, "Denmark was defeated in the summer of 1700 in the first significant events of the war. After a minor engagement at Holstein-Gottorp and a Swedish invasion of the Danish mainland they agreed to a treaty to not aid the enemies of Sweden." [1]

I changed battle for campaign because no major battle was fought that I've heard about. A small skirmish was reported when a Danish cavalry squadron charged a Swedish infantry battalion when the Swedish army disembarked on Zealand (the main island, not the mainland). JA 2006-10-13


Though Charles returned from the Ottoman Empire and resumed personal control of the war effort, he had little time to accomplish anything before his death in 1718

Huh? There are numerous engagements between 1715 and 1718 with Charles and Swedish troops involved! That he did not win them, it just what it is, - it certainly does not mean he had insufficient time to prep the battles, as this statement implies.

  • An expansion might work better. " Charles managed to return from the Ottomon Empire and resume control of the war effort. However during the invasion of Norway in 1716 he was killed in the trenches at Fredrikssten. This however did allow for a peace effort to begin between Sweden and Russia." [2]

I think the whole article should contain a little less Swedish point of view. Twthmoses 29 June 2005 04:20 (UTC)

  • I don't believe this has much of a Swedish POV just simple errors. Falphin 29 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)
  • The Reason why there aren't any finns involved is because Finland belonged to swedens scince about 1249, When Birger Jarl Crusaded to Finland. The Majority of finns actualy talked swedish.

The swedish army was better organised compared to the other nations army. The swedish king Charles XI organised a system to train his "Karolinians". Every Province in Sweden had to have a certain number of professional soldiers ready if war were declared.

An other reason for the swedish victories maybe is because king Charles always fought in his battles personally, he was a field marshall, always entering the battles in the first line. BuffaloSoldier

Source: Bonniers Lexikon

No warbox?[edit]

Is there a reason this article has no Template:warbox? I find them to be yummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.59.24.1 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take heed of Charles of Sweden, the Lion of the North...[edit]

Folk-rocker Al Stewart wrote an excellent song about the War, "The Coldest Winter in Memory", making him perhaps the only man to have written TWO pop songs about disasterous Russian campaigns (the other being "Roads to Moscow"). The song is found on his album "Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time".

Please sign your posts. Sioraf (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway and the Great Northern War[edit]

It has been proposed that Great Northern War and Norway be merged into Great Northern War.

Much of the Norwegian phase of the war would be minor trivia in the context of the larger "Great Northern War" page.

And yet the Norwegian role is of some interest to a subset of folks (of which I am one).

That said, Norway campaigns and activities could perhaps be handled as subarticles linked from a "Great Northern War" section.

What is the criterion for making such a merge?

Williamborg 03:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a pet peeve: folks 'merging' a page while dropping 80% of the content. In the wonders of Wiki, this material is lost! Please don't merge without capturing the unmerged portion on the talk page. Williamborg

I agree that Norwegian campaign should be relegated to a separate article. Let's remove the {merge} tag if noone objects within several days. --Ghirla | talk 08:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several days have passed. I'll delete and craft in a subarticle format. Williamborg 05:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging arose again on the Great Northern War and Norway talk page. And the Norwegian campaigns are covered in the Russian article, which is more balanced that the English article (the English has a Swedish-Russian focus). So I've added some of the Great Northern War and Norway article's material here.
  • If anything adding this material points out we need to strengthen the details in the English article further. Much of the treatment is rather superficial. Work to do, I guess...
And I see, to my amusement, that once again the Norwegain material has been reverted. This is a repeat of the cycle we've seen before. The only thing remaining is for the link to be deleted as it was once before. "The wind blows to the south and round ot the north and round and round blows the wind." Williamborg 03:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of Ottoman empire?[edit]

The intro. to the article says "...and Sweden with some help from the Ottoman Empire on the other side." Was the role of the Ottoman Empire really so important as to warrant a mention in the article. I know Karl XII was a guest of the Ottomans for some time after Poltava, but not that he received any actual military aid from them. Should we take this out? KarlXII 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Ottoman Empires should be removed altogether, since they did not take part in the Great Northern War.


When is a merge not a merge[edit]

Copied from Williamborg talk page: I reverted your copy-paste edits on the Great Northern War. If you want to merge this article with Great Northern War and Norway dicuss it first. -- Petri Krohn 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrigued that you elected to revert without either looking at this discussion page or discussing here.
I rather view this revision as strengthening a remarkably Russo-Swedish centric article. One needs only to look at the Russian article to see a much better balance.
Perhaps we should recognize this topic warrants more than a five paragraph article and strengthen it accordingly.
Cheers - Williamborg 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are welcome to do that. You should include the most important information from the Great Northern War and Norway, not the complete text. It is always a bad idea to have duplicate copies of the same material. -- Petri Krohn 03:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer to move the whole material, then we will have to delete the Norway article and turn this into a redirect. This would however first need to go through the proper merge process. I do not support a merge, and I do not think others will. -- Petri Krohn 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the thoughtful reply.
As one who has not supported the merge in the past, I believe that there is a place for more detailed articles which expand on core articles. I readily agree and would prefer to keep the arguably lesser phases of the war out of the main article.
Thanks - Williamborg 14:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignbox[edit]

Why can I not edit what thing on the article? Murderman 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think the template is useless. It duplicates the information contained in the text and encumbers the page. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're pretty much alone in this one. Campaignboxes, just like any other infoboxes serve a very important purpose here in wikipedia and there is a general consensus to use them. To make long thing short, they allow to get the idea of the entire article in just one glimpse, without having to read - often unbelievably long - articles. Believe it or not, but there are people looking only for the most basic information in wikipedia... //Halibutt 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have several reservations about this article. But most of them are IIRC and I'll return once I've brushed up my knowledge.

Halibutt is right, especially with high school and middle school students doing reports, they don't want to scan the article looking for information. They want it at a quick glance. Aaрон Кинни (t) 08:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline (moved from mainspace)[edit]

Timeline[edit]

Background[edit]

The War[edit]

A myth[edit]

I've heard lots of times that swedish soldiers were proffesional, but that's a myth, about 1/10 of the troops had the regular uniform and they weren't better trained than any danish/norwegian or german troops, Russia also had elite troops though those were mostly deployed on the ottoman front, Poland had a better cavalry etc, the thing was that the swedes thought that they were gods chosen and therefore thought that they were invincible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.238.51 (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What you heard was true and not a myth, since the days of Gustav II Adolf Sweden had built up a very profesional army. Point of fact, after the battle of Klizov the Saxon Field Marshal Stiena wrote "to have such troops under ones command is a generals dream, knowing that one alway´s has control of the battle". After the Battle of Poltava Field Marshal Reinskold stood before Czar Peter and then Peter raised his cup and said "I salute my teacher in the art of war" Sweden was a major power and they did not become that by sitting at home on their backsides. This does not take away the quality of their opponents, Saxony's Troops were renowned throughout Europe for their fighting ability. The Russians learned from the Swede´s whereby both Frederick the Great and Napoleon found it most frustrating in driving Russian Battalions from the battlefield. 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Ryttar 27 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs)

False information[edit]

Since the peak of swedish soldiers were 110 000 there is no chance at all that the casaulties could end up as high as 200 000, according to the most sources, the casualties of swedes were about 30-35 000 men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjstje (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The war lasted for 21 years. Most regiments suffered casualties larger than their original strength over that period, as have many other military units in many other wars. The total number of swedish soldiers who fought in the war at some time is probably around 300 000 or so. Since most swedish sources put the number of casualties (actually fatalities)at 200 000 I am changing it back.

/Richard

nope in the beginning of the war there was 77.000 soldiers, at the end the peak was 110.000

In battles 30.000 swedes were killed/wounded unsure about captured would guess about 20.000 or something


-Yes, the number of soldiers killed in battle is probably not higher than about 30000. however, 80% of the casualties in 17th century wars were caused by disease and famine. The swedish article actually has a source that says 200 000 soldiers died (Ericson, Lars, Svenska knektar (2004) Lund: Historiska media. sid. 92. ISBN 91-89442-52-0.). If you want to change the number again ypu should find a better source that supports your number.

/ Richard

130.236.83.55 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 200 000 is an estimate and it concerns only soldiers from Sweden or Finland, not from the Baltic states or from the provinces in Germany. Furthermore, the detailed calculations behind the estimate have never been published, so it's very difficult to determine if the estimate is correct or not. Some have suggested that the figure is too high. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.130.236.83.55 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the swedish Casualties here are supported by swedish facts, then they are the most relaibale we got in this moment. Best regards, Nikitn

Apology?[edit]

Some Swedish patriots maintain that hostilities weren't concluded until Russia's official apology on April 20, 1969.

What this sentence means? Have Russians ever apologized for something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gorbachev? :(

-G

Well, 1969 was Brezhnev's time. Such an apology thus needs strong sourcing. Digwuren 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then: pardon for my foreforefathers staggered around and killed everyone they saw. We won't do it again, I can promise! Said: Rursus (☻) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untenable assertions[edit]

Finland's prewar population of 400,000 was reduced by the end of the war to about 330,000 during the Russian occupation from 1714 to 1722. Combination of the war, famine and plague killed as many as two-thirds of the population of Latvia.[citation needed]

Poor syle[edit]

The paragraph "Opposing armies"

Is terrible - its a very informal description of the armies with words like "The ottoman morale was the worst" and "The Russians could have been crushed" - too much speculating and tangents. Theres lots of little problems there, but in short its jumping around too much. Tourskin 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of 75 000 russians killed were the casualties in combat, way more russians died out of disease and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.44.122 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section needs many citations from established historians, or those subjective statements should be edited heavily in order to NPOV the section. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political map[edit]

One showing the region of the war and its contemporary states would be nice. Anyone? ArdClose (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

The Campaignbox has casualties exceeding total strength, on both sides. Clearly the casualty figures are over inflated. Martintg (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Troop strength is given as at the beginning of war and casualties are given for the duration of war. War lasted for 21 year, so I find it entirely believable that losses were greater than initial troop strength. After all, Soviet military losses in WWII exceeded numerical strength of per-war Red Army. What I do see as questionnable though is lumping of Russian military losses with losses during construction of St. Petersburg and similar projects, exceeding scope of war. RJ CG (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of losses should be checked and supported by other independent sources. Current data is pro-Sweden and tentative. For example if we count killed of Sweden side (only acknowledged by Sweden historians) from major Wikipedia articles in English about Great Northern War we will have about 33,000 men (to say nothing about died of wounds and mortality was very high) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.190.102.42 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Swedish losses (the ones being killed directly at the battlefield) from all current articles available in English Wikipedia and reached a number of about 26,500 Swedish deaths. If it was said, for example 600 killed and wounded and split it 1/3 to 200 killed, if I didn't know the actual number myself. At Poltava I went for 8,000 killed Swedes which seems to be fairly accepted by most literature. Of course I didn't add any captured or mortally wounded to the number since they should be included in the 175,000 who died of starvation etc. I agree that 25,000 is a bit too low for the Swedish losses, and I've known this for a while but haven't found any sources with a higher number as of yet. All in all, I think the Swedish deaths in battles, sieges and skirmishes etc reached a little over 30,000 men. At the same time however, I think the statement of 75,000 killed Russians in combat is also a bit under the line. The Russian author Pitirim Sorokin stated in his book "Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol.3" that up to 315,000 Russians were either killed or wounded in combat (maybe/probably even what the Swedish author based his numbers on). Split this number in 3 = 105,000 or even 4 = 78,750 killed. If you count the killed for the Russians of each article you get a number close to 75,000 which is currently stated, however that is without including the battles at Tillendorf 1704 where up to 1,500 Russians died or Oder Beltch where another 1,000 died, the campaign at Pruth (those are not yet created but exist in other languages wikipedia) nor any of the other missing articles about battles, sieges etc. My best guess is that at least 80,000 Russians were killed in combat in total. There's also numbers saying about 1,500 Prussians, Hanoverians and English were killed in combat.
What's really under the line is actually the 200,000 Swedes dead. Those are only the deaths from present day Sweden (150,000) and Finland (50,000) and not from the Baltic and German regions Sweden held back then. Michael Clodfelter claims about 350,000 Swedes from all regions died in total from all causes in his book "Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618-1991". I think this is closer to the actual truth. The total allied losses are still unknown, but it's pretty clear they were much higher since their combined armies were much bigger than the Swedish ones and so probably suffered a lot more casualties throughout the war. I wouldn't be surprised if their casualties reached over 800,000 men in total. Hope this helped. Imonoz (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Stop lying, please. Sorokin did not write anything about 315,000 dead Russians. 30,000 killed in battle, and 115000 from disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.15.129.170 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"that has been regarded as a mistake since it became very easy for August II to retake the throne"[edit]

By whom? Sources please. CapnZapp (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The head of Charles XII[edit]

Section Swedish victories says:

From the very beginning of the Great Northern War, Sweden suffered from the inability of Charles XII to view the situation from anything but a purely personal point of view.

We've suspected that much, at least here in Sweden, but there's also some wide speculation that this C/XII guy had some important limitations in his head, someone diagnosing him as Asperger, or such. Sources for this would be profitable for the article. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "Karl XII Asperger" (i.e. in Swedish), and found lot's of interesting hits , f.ex. in http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/2002/temp/pda25796.pdf, except that this is in the Swedish language. I'll see how this is reflected in English texts. This discussion is mainly a Swedish one. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's a rumor created of an author Ernst Brunner heavily criticised for his book Carolus Rex. I'll take a little look more, and unless I find another reliable source, the matter should be left as is, and not specifically added to the article, yet ... Said: Rursus (☻) 19:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Yet another change of my mind) This is troublesome. There is a perfectly independent study by some professor Bengt Lagerkvist in Läkartidningen 2002;99:4874-8, the medical doctors professional paper (referent review and everything needed for primary professional and academically attested sources) in Sweden, but I cannot find it! In [www.lakartidningen.se/07engine.php?articleId=1006 this paper], prof Lagerkvist claims that the C/XII-was-an-Asperger is a strong case, with very good reasons to believe... Said: Rursus (☻) 20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rursus, thak you for the link on Aspeger Syndrom, very interesting. I guess one can alway´s spekulat on Karl XII mental state without ever comming too anyting conclusive. 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Ryttar 27 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs)

Careful choise of words[edit]

I have taken the liberty to edit a small section, which i found was somewhat un-neutral. The original section read: Denmark was defeated in the summer of 1700, in what was to be the first major campaign of the war, and in such a way that she could not participate in the war for a number of years

My revision reads:

Denmark was forced to withdraw from the war in the summer of 1700. After a minor engagement at Holstein-Gottorp and a Swedish landing of troops at zealand they agreed to a treaty not to engage in further hostilities against sweden

The use of words in the original section strongly suggest that that there was a decisive military engagement between denmark and sweden in 1700, and that this conflict weakened denmark in such a way that it was unable to continue the war for a number of years. This is the impression we get from the written words in the section. And if this is indeed the intention of the author of this section, then it is a complete historical falsum. I have studied various sources, and i have not come across an indication of a significant engagement in the year of 1700. The only hostilities that took place in this conflict between denmark and sweden was limited to minor skirmishes between local peasant militias (near Humlebæk, Zealand), and landing parties of swedish troops (the minor engagements in holstein excluded)

After the danish army attacked Gottorp, The swedish king Karl XII, covered by the duch and english fleets, launched a surprising and well executed landing on the danish island of zealand, with the goal of capturing copenhagen. The conflict was interrupted before any serious fighting occured. In reality the "war" between denmark and sweden was over before it even began. When the danish king realised that he could not break Gottorp before the arrival of the dutch, english, and swedes, he wisely made truce with Gottorp at the 23rd of july, which was many days before Karl XII even landed with his army on zealand. the final peace treaty of travental was signed at the 28th of july. When word of the peace became known the swedish army had to return to sweden. Conclusion: The war goes on without denmark

source that indicate that the scale of the conflict on zealand: http://www.roskildehistorie.dk/1700/billeder/krige/nordisk/nordiskkrig.htm I was not able to find any satisfactory source on the internet. Davamb (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

There is a merge tag on this page; it redirects here, but there is no discussion started; also no date or rationale.
The proposal seems to be to merge Charles XII invasion of Russia to here.

I would oppose the merger: I can't see any reason why, and it's usual to have separate pages on battles and campaigns. The other page needs work, but bringing it here won't make it better. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Charles' invasion of Russia and the GNW? They should be merged, enough of the atomisation of these articles. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if you support the merge, but in answer to your query, Charles' invasion and the Great Northern War were not the same thing at all. The war lasted 21 years; Charles' invasion covered just 3 of them. And the war was fought in a number of theatres, not just in Russia. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over 21 years the fighting was very sporadic, but the decisive moment was Charles’ decision to invade Russia. If this article was done properly in the first place there would be no need to branch off into stubby articles (for a stub it will remain). The priority should be to bring this article up to a high standard and put the crucial moment in perspective and in the correct place ie: this article. Do it properly and you won't need to subdivide. Ragnhild Hatton’s Charles XII and Robert Massie’s Peter the Great are a good place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.151.2 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Charles XII invasion of Russia should be expanded and positioned as the subarticle of the Great Northern War. Peltimikko (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the Russian invasion was a campaign in a greater war. The war is big enough in itself and the campaign big enough in itself to both warrant their own pages. The article is not about to remain a stub - just look at the Swedish version (which is could use some elaboration as well). --Pykk (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- the Russian invasion was merely one aspect of a larger war. The best solution will be to retain both articles, making the invasion article a sub-article, with a "main" link to the article on the war. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to have been any support for this, but the tags are still lying around, so can I suggest closing this as No support for merger ? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar pirates?[edit]

The infobox lists Madagascar pirates as belligerents: Does anyone know about this? What were pirates from Madagascar doing in the Baltic?
I would have deleted it as a hoax, but it's a)referenced and b) been deleted and replaced before.
Any ideas? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it before, and the "explanation" in the note "The Madagascar pirates were only collaborating with the Swedish navy and state, they were not formally at war with any of the Coalition countries.[3][4]" does not really explain anything. If they were not at war with anybody why mention them as belligerents? The sources looks legit (they are also in the Swedish article), but I think that some further elaboration on this in the actual article text, is needed for this to remain in that infobox. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A week has passed and no elaboration in the article text concerning the pirates has occurred, so I have deleted them from the infobox as participants in the war. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Xyl 54 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, checking the given references and others, there really were (European) pirates in Madagascar that supposedly negotiated with Karl XII (negotiations were also done with British Jacobites), and who mostly wanted asylum it seems. Nothing came of either, they weren't allies and weren't involved in the war. It was, however, a prelude to the founding of the Swedish East India Company (and is duly mentioned there). It doesn't belong here though. --Pykk (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain[edit]

I don't think Britain should be listed on the Russian side of the conflict. In 1700 a British navy assisted Sweden in the war against Denmark. Later the relations deteriorated, with Swedish privateers attacking British ships bound for Russian-occupied Baltic ports and due to the British alliance with Hannover. There were some skirmishes between Swedish and British ships, and on at least one occasion a combined British/Dutch navy escorted a merchant fleet in the Baltic sea. However, I am fairly certain that there was never a formal state of war between the countries. After Sweden made peace with Hannover the British wanted to limit Russian expansion into the Baltic sea. A British navy was present during the final years of the conflict to prevent an invasion of the western part of Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.212.164 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the British navy that assisted Sweden in 1700 as Great Britain only formed in 1707 so I presume it was either the English or Scottish or both that took part in this action. Dja1979 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be pedantic. It was the navy of the British crown, which had been united since 1603. The monarch of England and Scotland had a single British foreign policy, and a single set of diplomats to represent him abroad. In practice, the ships would be those of the English Royal Navy; I do not think Scotland had much of a navy. It is true that there were separate English, Scottish and Irish Parliamets and Exchequers, but three was a single government controlled by the king from London. Accordingly, "British" is an appropriate term for the three nations united by a single monarch. Since in 1700, the king in question was also stadfholder most of the United Provinces, a common British and Dutch naval escort is hardly unexpected. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well on the Kingdom of Scotland page "This meant that the Act allowed for the Scottish Parliament to initiate an independent foreign policy during an era of major European warfare like the War of the Spanish Succession and the Great Northern War". So from this it seems that Scotland had it's own foreign policy and not necessarily the same and England. If this is not the case then I would think it would be correct to correct that page.Dja1979 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your quotation seems to apply to the effects of an Act of 1703, which was repealed (in practice, if not in theory). This was something new, operating from 1703 to 1707. It was presumably a Scottish reaction to the English passing of the Act of Settlement. I think your quotation would be miore accurate as to what actually happened if the words "would have" appeared near the beginning of it, as I do not think this was implemented. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

presentation[edit]

This article has become very cluttered with an excessive number of infoboxes and navboxes, which are breaking up the text. Can some one please tidy this up so as to remove the excessive amounts of blank space that they cause? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent self-contradiction: Oder estuary[edit]

According to this article

The war ended with a defeat for Sweden... Brandenburg-Prussia incorporated the Oder estuary

But also

Frederick William I entered the war as elector of Brandenburg and king in Prussia... He was determined to gain the Oder estuary as a direct access to the Baltic Sea for the Brandenburgian core areas, a Brandenburgian goal ever since.

The later quote implies the estuary continued to be Prussia's objective after the war which doesn't make sense if Prussia already achieved it.

Top.Squark (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second quote reads "entered the war" and describes the war aim, while the first one reads "the war ended" and describes the result. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange that the phrase "ever since" is used to mean "during the war". Are you sure this is the intent? If so, I will fix the wording. Top.Squark (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "ever since" is supposed to mean that this (gain of lower Oder) was not just a war aim for this war, but was an aim of Brandenburg, later Brandenburg-Prussia, since its creation. Nominally, the margraves gained superiority over Pomerania already in the early 13th century, but the Pomeranians always found a way to prevent them from actually taking possession, by both numerous wars and diplomacy. When the Pomeranian dynasty died out and the take-over by Brandenburg seemed imminent (Treaty of Grimnitz, Treaty of Pyritz), the Swedish took over instead (Treaty of Stettin (1630)). Brandenburg-Prussia conquered the area in the Scanian War, but was always forced to hand it back in the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1679). Only after the Great Northern War they actually won and 'permanently' kept it. Maybe "ever since" should be reworded and link to the Brandenburg-Pomeranian conflict? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about "which had been a Brandenburgian aim for centuries"?

Another contradiction: British navy defending Sweden against Russia?[edit]

Britain and Russia were on the same side of the war: against Sweden. This is visible in the battlebox and mentioned on multiple occasions inside the articles. However, we also find that

...A smaller Russian force advanced on the Swedish capital, but was stopped at the battle of Stäket on August 13. The Russians returned again in 1720 and 1721, although the presence of a British navy limited the extent of the raids.

Which implies the British defended Sweden against Russia for some reason

Top.Squark (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a contradiction, since by then Britain (i.e. Hanover) had already concluded a separate peace with Sweden (1719, Stockholm) and the anti-Swedish alliance had broken appart and was replaced by an anti-Russian alliance (Vienna 1719), to which Hanover/Britain was a party. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is little mention of this in the article. We only find that

When Sweden finally was at peace with Hanover, Great Britain, Brandenburg-Prussia and Denmark-Norway, she hoped that the anti-Russian sentiments of the Vienna parties and France would culminate in an alliance which would restore to her her Russian-occupied eastern provinces. Yet, primarily due to internal conflicts in Great Britain and France, that did not happen.

The above leaves the impression there was no anti-Russian alliance. Moreover, if you are right than Great Britain should be listed in the battlebox on Sweden's side as well. Top.Squark (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Vienna alliance, to which the above sentences refer, is also outlined in the article as follows: "In January 1719, George I, August the Strong and emperor Francis I concluded a treaty in Vienna aimed at reduction of Russia's frontiers to the pre-war state."
I have added a clarification to the passage about the Russian raids. It is necessary since the Vienna alliance is only mentioned later in the article, potentially confusing the reader. Top.Squark (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the battlebox, I think it would be confusing to add Hanover/GB on the Swedish side, since the post-1719 actions (a) happened when the war was basically over, and (b) were not "pro-Sweden", but rather "anti-Russia", without amounting to a full-scale campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, the war continued until 1721. I don't see the essential difference between "pro-Sweden" and "anti-Russia". The small scale of these actions also doesn't exempt them from being a part of the war. Top.Squark (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should write an article on the role of the Royal Navy on the Baltic. They have been present in every war, except WW II, and in every case, "defended Sweden". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been present in every war, and they haven't been on Swedens side every time they intervened (for example in this case they started out being against Sweden). They have been present in a lot of the wars there since the late 1600s, and in every case it was to secure that no single state had hegemony over the Baltic and particularly the straits of Øresund. This meant that they fought against whoever had a chance of gaining such a hegemony, which was chronologically Denmark-Norway, Sweden and Russia. But yes, it would make an interesting article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is an article describing Britain's "balance of power" policy here, though it certainly could be expanded. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "every war" might refer to most wars in which the British were involved. It would not necessarily apply to Danish-Swedish wars, when Britain was neutral. However, I suspect that what we are arguing over is an oversimplistic summary in an infobox. As I understand it, the UK was never at war with Sweden, but the British navy intervened in support of Hanoverian aggression and in doing so made life difficult for the Swedes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Regarding this [4], since, I'm guessing, that's not the real Charles laying there dead, proper attribution would require that we include information of where that recreation comes from. Where's it from?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's from some exposition - my guess would be at Fredriksten fortress in Halden, Norway. The actual coat and hat are on display at the Stockholm Palace but not as part of any kind of recreation.Strausszek (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say the say thing as Volunteer Marek. The depiction looks a little tacky, too. The caption should mention the background info on the scene. The title of the uploaded photo doesn't, either. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion here agrees with my assessment; downgrading the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on major conflict infobox[edit]

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fladstrand[edit]

Would anyone who understands this article well enough be able to get Battle of Fladstrand into it, such that this article links to Battle of Fladstrand? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty number dispute[edit]

Could this matter be discussed here in this talk page instead of resorting to edit war?

As to the matter i checked out the article the IP address editor repeated inserts and to be frank it seems to me that it is discussing total loss of Swedish lives due to the war instead of the military casualties. Since this article - or rather the infobox - is about the military conflict i do not see how the new number of 350 000 would be in any manner relevant in that box. It might be mentioned somewhere in the article however. What would you say on that? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally time to answer here. Wanna start out with saying I appreciate that you have intervened. Regarding the number of 350,000 Swedish casualties it could very well be accurate, actually. I believe the casualties are as following, 150,000 "Swedes", 50,000 "Finns" and 150,000 from the Batlic and German provinces (the rest) etc. I never had a problem with this number, my problem was that he deleted a good chunk of text with references to it. And a casualty section already existed, I initially suggested him to write there instead but he refused. I understand that I was blocked from edition, fair enough, as long as there's no one vandalizing the site and someone else can help protect it. Imonoz (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually very doubtful unless you can provide actual sources to prove it. What i mean is that at the time there was no difference between being a Finn and being a Swede. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that Finns were as much Swedes as anyone else, that is just me pointing out the regions of the number, since it's written by modern authors there's an interest in pointing out present-day location. The guy I was arguing had his source there, it's "Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015" I don't have the book personally but it's listed here as a source. In the war Sweden lost far more than 350,000 soldiers and civilians. The number of 150,000 Swedish soldier casualties and 50,000 Finnish though I'm pretty sure it is widely used, I don't have a source at hand to provide. And last, why would it be doubtful? This is an active war going on for more than 21 years, casualties were high. Also see my text I wrote about it some time ago here. Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can not go mixing numbers from different sources and coming up with new conclusions. Which is another reason why it is so dubious. WP:SYN and WP:OR. Can't be done. You need to find a source which explicitly states it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the same author, Micheal Clodfelter, and he's obviously using the same material and numbers for both his books. I'm not coming up with any conclusions on my own, I just provided the source for you. And why do I need to find anything? I never said I would change anything in the infobox, I just proved to you that the number of 350,000 Swedish casualties is not "very doubtful", at least not according to any authors I've seen, it's only you stating that so I'll throw that "WP:SYN and WP:OR" back at you. In fact, I would not have any problem with that number in the infobox with the reference. Imonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it is from the same author or not. What matters if it is actually expressed in the source material or not. And that 'obviously' part is rather dangerous in this respect. Mind you - additional problem with the 350 000 casualty number is that the source does not qualify as to what those 350 000 dead were. It reads, on p. 90: "Sweden, the Swedish Baltic provinces, and Finland, together, with a population of only 2.5 million, lost some 350,000 dead during the war from all causes." So we can not say it refers to military losses alone - since the source doesn't qualify them as such. - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sweden, the Swedish Baltic provinces, and Finland, together, with a population of only 2.5 million, lost some 350,000 dead during the war from all causes." this would indicate that these are the deaths of all reasons during the war, not only due to the war. Seeing how Sweden and it's provinces suffered with the plague as well as crop failure, not to mention the short lifespan compared to today and the more than 21 years of ongoing conflict, I think it's pretty obvious that he's refeering to military personal only. There's not a chance that only 150,000 civilians died during this time of natural reasons as well as due to the war. But yes, the text you quoted is not clear, even though it most likely refeers to military personal only, I haven't read his book(s) personally, but I think it's important to see in what context this is taken out of. Among others, Peter Ullgren states that 205,000 military personal died from Sweden and Finland only on page 326 in his book Det stora nordiska kriget 1700-1721 that is 170,000 from the army, 20,000 from the navy as well as 15,000 officers. here, Erik Nordberg in a summary of the Swedish wars prior to 1814 states that 150,000 from present-day Sweden died, and 50,000 from present-day Finland on page 6. So nothing of the remaining regiments in the Baltics, German or fortune-seekers from other nations fighting for the Swedish cause. And again, I'm not going to change anything in the infobox, I'm just saying that the number of 350,000 military deaths is probably not that doubtful and should not be disregarded too quickly. Imonoz (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Northern_War&oldid=1212510080"