@Trybut3 asia includes china and japan... japan made the biggest human genocide in the history of mankind to china, in one city they raped and killed over 2 million people... and that was a small chinese village... you guys are worse than naziz and commies...
If you all really take this video this seriously, then why dont you go to armies of respectively Russia and Sweden and have a real war rather than half-literate row without any use of proper historical evidence, arguments or conclusions. If you just feel like shouting out that "[INSERT A NAME] SUCKS!", do it somewhere else, seriously!
That is not true. In the other countries of Europe they used Mercenaries or Convicts from other countries. While Sweden used soldiers from Sweden. 90% of our army consisted of Swedish farmers, workers even people in the higher class almost nobility. The rest is from our trustworthy friends the finns. Since they have been with us dating 800 years back. They used the Hakkapeliita finnish elite light cavalry unit
So note Sweden's army consisted of Sweds and Finns. Get your facts son!
@MsterClan lol. are you kidding russia sucks. kgb are dicks. there is fucking glass everywhere. and moskow has the most wild dogs than any other city! but they can kick ass in a war.
What!?!?!? Swedes exchanging musket volleys? This is so wrong! One volley when you see the withe of their eyes and then charge at them with swords and pikes
that was fuckin brilliant best empire film i seen yet no one ever shows the up close muskets volleys thats what these wars were like not fucking cavalry
In my opinion Russia hasen't won a single war since their losses has allways been great, I don't know why they allways use their numbers insteed of training.
As a norwegian, i play as sweden and destroy Denmark asap.. shitty country.. I wish norway and sweden was one country again. That would be the best for both countries imo for several reasons i cba explain
Remember, both nations were great strategists, both have great leaders, Karl XII were a great king, but Peter I The Great were greater (Hence the title The Great). English, Polish, French, ALL eropean nations will bent to this, for in the time, russia had an upper hand. Just That!
Luck IS a determining factor in war, and russia were luckyer. Sweden is a great nation to be reckon with, so as russia, for she survived 900 years, and still count!
So relax people!And enjoy a Russian victoy in a GAME
Sweden won Finland's freedom, and that's to be remembered. Also to be remembered is that Sweden have been one of this world's strongest and most fearful countries in Europe.
On the battlefield (or anywhere else) one Swedish man is worth at least 10 Russian men. Sadly, Russian generals don't care how many they lose and view their men as toilet paper to be used up and thrown away. It was only through weight of numbers and callous disregard for their own troops that the Russian 'generals' (I use the term loosely) were ever able to 'win' a battle against the Swedes.
usuing these tactics the swedes would lost badly. In this vid they use common line infantry tactics, which Sweden seriously lacked the manpower to afford. Instead the caroleans used charge tactics. Generally a swedish musketeer never reloaded in a battle, they fired their muskets at 50 meters, except the 2 front ranks that fired at either 30 meters or just before calshing into the enemy ranks.
@GriffinZabaton well your right the swedes were often outnumbered in like 2-1. The musketeers often walked right into enemy fire until ca 30 metres from the enemy or as Karl X!! said until they saw the white in the enemies eyes. Then they fired once and went into melee combat. Tough the swedes often had superior cavalry numbers so they could wipe out the enemy cav and then flank or just crush the enemies lines from the front. Even if sweden had superior tactics i dont think they had enough men.
guys this is just a game if you want to discuss this go to a forum or something I mean it`s just a game it`s just a bunch of kids playing a game with each other it`s not a big meeting or debate
Joonte1010 i'm totaly disagree with you... If there wasn't those 6 nations who'll dominate the world?
Actually luck and resources play main role in every war. In case of war Russian vs. Sweden there were situation where modern Sweden fleet (in general frigates) wasn't able to fight with russian galley (Gangyth battle).
The point is Russia win this war Sweden lose. Just like Mongolia, France, Turkey, Germany. But it cost too much. And Sweden people stopped their imperial age after these war.
Sweden captured the Russian access to the Baltic after having betrayed it in 1617 (previous to that, Russia and Sweden were allies against Poland). After that the Swedish were occupied with economic blackmail demanding money from Russian merchants who wanted to trade with Europe. So if Sweden just peacefully gave the Russian Baltic coast back, it could have avoid the humiliation of the Great Northern War and the loss of the great power status.
@PernatyZmey Humiliation of the Great Northern War? You do realise Sweden kicked ass in this war, Poltava was indeed a big defeat but we made a reputation of ourselfs as the most elit fighting force at the time. Our king Karl XII and his father Karl XI dedicated thier lifes into the army, Karl XII sleept under the bare sky whit his men and in the same uniform, ate the same food and even made pillageing punishable by death. You should read a book about him.
@tyskbulle Sweden fought well, but politically it behaved very foolishly. A country with such a low population should not overstretch itself and overestimate its might. Else a catastrophe is programmed. For example, Sweden should have realized that the occupation of the Neva delta and Russian baltic coast is a time bomb and that Russia would get it back sooner or later. If Sweden knew its place and behaved wisely it could have avoided wars and probably keep the Baltic states until today.
@PernatyZmey Not a reality, politically the baltic trade had been the source for swedish wars for hundreds of years, specialy during the 30 year war period. I dont think russia woud have settled whit small coastlines in the baltic. Eventualy more wars woud follow. In 1809 all of Finland and parts of northen Sweden were lost in another war russian war of aggresion, proveing that the baltic and southern Finland wasn´t enough. Karl XII was also a hard drilled soldier, and sutch was his thinking.
Had Sweden done that we wouldn't had been a Great Power. Had we given Russia access to the Baltic all we've fought for over the past 100 years would've been for nothing. Dominum Maris Baltici.
@k1lkenny Greed is not good. This were ancient Russian lands (from 8th century on) and you wanted to get merchants' money for nothing. You have to learn to share, if you don't want to lose it all.
@k1lkenny If you learned history, you would know that the vast majority of the Russian Empire's territory joined Russia either voluntarily (Ukraine, Ossetia, Bashkiria, Kabardy, Georgia, Yakutia etc.) or were taken from foreign occupants, partly with local joy (e.g. Belarus, Armenia). In other cases the conquered territories had a long tradition of attacks and slavetrade (Crimean and Volga Tatars, Central Asians). There were no similar motives in the Swedish conquests in the Baltics. Just greed.
That's a load bs. Like they had any choice. And then again, how about stealing all the Swedish possessions south of Finland? None of those wanted to become Russian, with the exception of Ingiria perhaps, Estonia put themselves under Swedish protection and rule by choice in mid 1550s so that we could protect them from the Russians. Only reason Peter wanted access to the Baltic was cause he wanted to escape Swedish traffis. Money was the only reason Russia waged war on Sweden.
How about you read a book :) And I can't for a million dollars believe Russia invaded and took cause they wanted to abolish slave-trade in those nations. Russia was build on serfdom till mid 1800s, which is ridicules. (Russians were hence slaves to the nobles, which is so backwards I nearly can't believe it)
@k1lkenny Russia took revenge for century-long attacks slave trade which affected ethnic Russians in the borderlands. What concerns Finland: I doubt whether Finns liked the Swedish so much, they were occupants and subjugartors. This was just a switch. Within the Russian Empire, the Grand Duchy of Finland had a broad autonomy, freedom from military service and many other liberal rules it didn't have before. Sweden betrayed Russia in the beginning of the 17th century and needed to be punished.
You're a hypocrite. And Finland as a nation didn't even exist before the swedes COLONISED it. You're talking about Sweden taking old Russian territory well Finland was the eastern part of Sweden. Yeah that's right it was actual Sweden, finns never complained about being Swedish cause that's what they were, swedes, east Swedes. Sweden is one of the oldest nations on earth, and when Sweden was established Finland was already in it!
@k1lkenny Sweden captured old Russian territory not in Finland, but on the shores of the Neva. The strategic access to the Baltic. It happened in 1617 (Treaty of Stolbova) after Sweden betrayed Russia after being allied with her against Poland. Sweden benefited from Russian interiour problems (Time of troubles) and massacred the population of Novgorod before it robbed Russian lands. With this crime Sweden made itself Russian enemy and later got its punishment: the loss of the great power status.
Erm yes I know all this, though I said nothing of it in my previous post cause that wasn't what it was about. And we hardly back stabbed you, I do guess you know that many Russians at the time wanted a Swedish prince as the new Czar, and the good Russians waited for him as well, however it took too long and eventually the Romanovs took the power. You can hardly blame a nation for using it influence in a power vacuum. Picking the Romanovs made Russia our enemy.
@k1lkenny The Russians wanted a Swedish prince as new Czar? Do you have serious sources for this? Why would an Orthodox people want to have a foreign ruler of a foreign faith? Sounds like a myth. The Russians chose the Romanovs, that's explainable. But a Swedish prince? And yes, I can blame another nation for using the weakness of the other. In this case, such a nation can't complain when it is forced to pay the price afterwards.
Hmm I'm stunned, You seemed to have at least some knowledge in history yet you've missed this fact? If you read history from books rather than on wikipedia this wouldn't had come as a surprise. The religion weren't a problem since the prince would have converted - It was rather a problem for the Swedish bishop cause he didn't want the prince to convert from protestantism. It's not a myth however. Charles Philip, son of Charles IX was offered the throne.
@k1lkenny I was right, Charles Philipp was not the choice of the people. He was a proposition of some Novgorod boyars who expected more liberties. The fact the he was not chosen is not a reason to declare war because Russia didn't have any obligations in this matter. The choice of Romanovs was, on the contrary, a choice by Zemsky sobor, a National assembly where many groups of the society were represented. BTW, the Swedish betrayal occured much earlier, in the Battle of Klushino, 1610.
To all the danish dicks, russian retards and polish pricks: Sweden would have pwnd the living fuck out of each and every one of you one on one. Your armies stank and you were all cowards to team up like that. SWEDISH POWER!
@Alsemenor Äh, lev med det. Det är ju sant. Sverige hade fanimej en armé som krossade allt på den tiden. De gick ju ihop över fem länder mot oss. Inte undra på att de lyckades. Det var fegt av dem och de borde inte vara stolta. Och nej, jag är inte rasist. Jag är patriot. Förstår du skillnaden? :)
@NHLfreak87 Dem gick inte ihop mot oss, Danmark och resten av anfallarna hade ingen allians, Danmark passade helt enkelt på att kniva oss i ryggen och fick på käften i samma runda :D
@adamcarlsson Du har rätt. Men jag menade inte att de hade en allians av någon sort. Jag menade helt enkelt att de var 5-6 länder som alla attackerade oss samtidigt :). Som du säger så gick det ju ändå åt helvete för danskarna :P. Vilka pussys, eller hur? :P
@NHLfreak87 Nej, morfars sida av släkten. Men jag hatar nog danskar mer än någon annan, för jag vet hur de beter sig socialt... Som fulla svin!!! Allvarligt.
@adamcarlsson Helt rätt :). Dom är lite svinaktiga eller hur? Lol nu tog du fram mitt danskhat :P. Sen ska man ju inte börja prata om det där lätet som dom kallar för ett språk :P.
I love the russians here going "Oh, why did Sweden lose to Russia if you're so awesome?"
Because Russia ganged up with 6 other nations on us surrounding all our borders, that's why. It's a bit like those cowardly kids at a school who don't dare to protest, so they have to gang up on the guy they don't like, just like the sissies they are.
I've always liked Russia, but claiming that Russia "owned" Sweden in the Great Northern War is disgracefully historically inaccurate.
@Andrekky russia also had a large army and a large amount of space and power in there country all they have to do is retreat in to there country untill there enemy is weak then attack with a large army
Of course they won. After getting trashed over and over again, by a country whose population was one of the smallest in europe in relation to it's landmass. It's so sad, that Russia only barely won despite those odds.
If Sweden was equally cowardly, we'd have allied with August after giving him his beatings, and gone to Moscow that way. But some of us have morals, even in war.
But I guess Russia wouldn't know much about that, looking at it's history.
@Andrekky It wasnt that hard for Russia to win... The rusian tzar was in another place with the army, conquering lands in another war as i recall it while King Carl atacked and advanced into inland... Also, as usual, Russia relyed on its great lands to trap the fins inside...
Yes. Czar Peter had an almost awkward tendency to disappear from his army prior to a major defeat, if memory serves. So being absent from the field of battle can be more credited to fear than anything else.
Whereas Carolus was with his troops at the front the whole time, leading his men as a commander is meant to do, he was present at the field even while wounded, even in defeat. I guess that kind of settles who was actually the greatest monarch and general.
@Andrekky Yes, the one who modernized Russia, who conquered so much of Finland, who brought up his country out of the middle ages into the light, who went to study in the west as a simple scholar, not a king, and who drew the fins so deep inside Russia that they couldnt escape! That would be Tzar Peter the GREAT as he is called!
Oh please. Look at a map and realise that it was just a tiny bit of land that was actually conquered. Sure, it may have ruined our Dominium Maris Baltici, but that's not for Peter to take credit for. Once again, he was a coward who only dared to attack when ganging up on Sweden, and bombarded us with peaceofferings the moment things didn't go his way.
The reason he withdrew so back into Russia was quite simple; He knew he couldn't defeat the Swedish Carloeans. Not even 10 to 1.
@Andrekky Tzar Peter the great was a man of great value and there is no fin king or poet or builder to be as renown as him! WTF, more people know about Tzar Peter than of the existance of finalnd! So please, a little respect for mighty russia, and next time you flame a country, make sure youre not from a pety worthless country!
Hahahah, oh you fool. Take a look at the livingstandards of each country. Who takes care of it's people? I can tell you it's not Russia. If you asked a foreigner where he'd like to live, it would be in Sweden and not in your semi-dictatorship.
Besides, if Finland is so small and worthless, how come they KICKED YOUR BUTT in WW2? You didn't even dare to invade any of the Scandinavian countries during the Cold War, not even the neutral ones.
Also, you're really ignorant if you believe more people know about Peter than those who know about Finland. Finland is a country who started off as a vassal of yours and now the average Finn has a better life than the average Russian. You should speak of them with respect. Glory to the Nordic countries.
Also, you boast with how Tzar Peter modernized Russia? Well, considering how technologically backwards and retarded Russia was at the time, that's not saying very much.
@Andrekky The Swedish Caroleans (the soldiers) were regarded to have been maybe the most effective military troop of that day and they were very effective, since the swedish army of those days couldn't rely on numbers they went for effective trained troops. Respect to them! Some people say the british soldiers were the best but I think not.
@FreedomFighter08 "People" say this because British troops are among the most recognizable to the untrained mind. Even if someone does not know the least bit about history he or she can more than likely identify a British soldier from the muskets era. By the time of the Great Northern War the Swedish army had reached its apex, and its reputation as arguably the most effective fighting force in Europe would soon be displaced by Prussia. Britain's army does not measure up until much later.
@HHFD50 " "People" say this because British troops are among the most recognizable to the untrained mind."
Because of all the movies made, You dont see any French,German,Swedish e.t.c making movies about their own history. Its only English history and American history sadly.. And im quite fed up by watching tea drinking sissies with red coats in movies. Or American terminator movies which is laughable.
@joonte1010 so only americans and british people make historical movies, right? then i guess the samurai trilogy, telling the story of Musashi Miyamoto, made in japan, was never created? or that the german film "Downfall", telling the story of the fall of nazi germany, doesnt exist? or the french film Joyeux Noël, telling the story of the christmas cease fire of World War I, was just made up. does the swedish film The Emigrants ring any bells? depicting an emigration from sweden to minnesota?
@tomclancy008 What kind of movies do you see at the cinema? I was telling that english why so many recognise the English Red coats easily, Its because they have made so many movies about them. Russia is starting to make movies about their history but their movies are just as inaccurate as the US ones (The patriot is a good example).
@joonte1010 The Patriot is historical fiction. Its MEANT to not be true. What your forgetting, however, is that the backdrop is. It uses fictional battles and ambushes alongside historical battles to show what the war was like. If you want to be technical about, probably the only battle played straight in that film is the Battle of Yorktown, though I do look with pointed measure at French involvement in the war.
@joonte1010 as for the whole "tea drinking sissies" thing, just remember that those "tea drinking sissies" were considered the most powerful empire of the time, kicking ass all over europe. i think they're entitled to a little tea/
@tomclancy008 The English never fought a war alone, They allways had their allies and they didnt have the most powerfull armies, The English were more interested in their naval and to establish colonies around in the world. Powerfull armies the French,Prussia and Swedes in their earlier stage had.
@joonte1010 Your right, the English never fought alone. And they never had the most powerful armies. Instead, they had some of the best generals of the time. If you've seen any film or documentary, you'll realize that numbers aren't exactly keys to victory. Aside from that, the English didn't NEED an army. England, for all of it's vaunted glory, is an island. So, going by that logic, they would have the most powerful navy after the destruction of the Spanish Armada.
@tomclancy008 Best generals? I have only heard about one general named Marlbourough and Nelson the naval admiral. Otherwise i think their generals had the same standard as the rest of Europes. You also forget that England most of the times used a bigger army in their battles than their opponents.
@joonte1010 I'm talking primarily about the men who commanded the British during the American Revolution, such as Cornwallis and Gage. Or even Montgomery of WWII. And of course there was George Washington. And before you get on to me about that, I am talking about the French and Indian War, not the Revolution. Then of course there were the commanders of Waterloo. And yes, I know they had other guys on that field but my point stands. As for bigger army, there have been several occasions where...
@joonte1010 ... the English have been completely outnumbered and STILL defeated their opponents, such as the Siege of Savannah Other officers would include Benedict Arnold and Thomas Howe, as well as numerous other exceptional commanders. As of allies, I would like to point out the conquering of Wales and Scotland for lonesome England, as well as frequent victories in the early American Revolution, often without help. Not to mention Lexington and Concord. Wow. I've written way too much.
@tomclancy008 The War England had against the American colonists isnt something to brag about since the English got defeated by an army of peasents. And the conquering of Wales and Scotland? They were lesser advanced and lacked the organised armies the English had.
@joonte1010 Did I say they won? And I prefer the term "colonists", especially since the grand majority of those "peasents" were former BRITISH military, especially the Generals, woodsmen who knew the terrain and lay of the land, and people who could get geared up and ready for battle within a MINUTE. And it doesnt matter how advanced a nation is, it can still beat someone with superior firepower. A rather heartrending example would be Vietnam. As for Scotland? Battle of Falkirk. Wales...
@tomclancy008 Yes, Scotland and Wales managed to win some battles against the English even thou they were lesser armed and had lesser men. Alright, Colonists. It doesnt change the fact that they aswell were lesser armed and trained then the English soldiers. The English history have been raised to the sky because of all the movies made but the fact is that they were more of a Colony power, They had their colonies and protected them with their navy. Read about France and Prussia instead..
@joonte1010 Do I really need to say this? Fine, here goes: WATERLOO. WORLD WAR I. WORLD WAR II. THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR. France gets its butt handed to it so many times throughout history its pathetic. As for Prussia, you leave out the fact they were often fighting EACH OTHER in unification wars. They eventually became the German Empire, which fell to pieces and became the Weimer Republic, which then became the THIRD REICH.
@tomclancy008 The hundred years war was actually a French victory, Napoleon in Waterloo werent the same as he was earlier during the Napoleon war. World war I and World war II was all about Germany, Prussia had a strong military with proud military traditions. England were nothing against either one of them alone.
@joonte1010 My mistake on the Hundred Years war. Napolean almost won Waterloo, and would have if he'd had a better position to view the battle. WWI was mostly fought by British and American troops because the French had been pushed back to Paris. And as for the England standing thing: England stood alone for nearly two years, beating back Hitler every time he tried to order an invasion. His naval forces were continuously destroyed by British air raids, and his great Luftwaffte couldnt retake...
@tomclancy008 WW1 was mostly fought by British and Americans?.... um.... The US didn't enter the war until 1917. The French and British fought on an allied front for the 3 years leading up to that. I'm not saying that the US didn't contribute (because it did. A lot.), but they didn't do nearly as much as the French (which is to be expected, seeing as the war on the Western Front took place almost entirely in France).
Unless I misunderstood your comment, in which case I apologize. :)
@Fribnibby It was British and American troops who made some of the final major pushes. As I said in the comment, France was exhausted by the war and had been pushed back to Paris. The fact that they managed to hold for so long deserves the utmost respect. But make no mistake: France was demolished in WWI.
@joonte1010 ... air superiority. The United States did not go anywhere near Europe until the Invasion of Italy, and Hitler's invasion of Russia failed miserably. British and American forces then proceeded to land on the beaches of Normandy in 1944, with intelligence and sabatoge gained from both paratroopers and members of the French Resistance. The only time Britain showed any true weakness was when they put that dumbass Montgomery in charge of Operation Market Garden. That idiot killed more...
@joonte1010 ... actually invaded England first and was only defeated because of infighting. And your discounting your statement about the English not having the most powerful armies.
@tomclancy008 How am i discounting my statement about something that is obvious? Look at the wars France and England had with eachother (England allmost only fought France while France have fought all of europe throughout history and had their interest to try and dominate in Europe)
@joonte1010 We saw how well THAT turned out, now didnt we? As for England and France fighting mainly each other its probably because France is on the MAINLAND. They are literally directly across from England, seperated only by the Channel. OF COURSE England's only main enemy was France. That and your forgetting that the Spanish and French were allies and often fought England together. The grand majority of these confrontations took place in the New World, such as the French and Indian War...
@tomclancy008 France had the power in Europe back then, Why do you think all the culture was French inspired? The confrontations between France and England in the new world were small compared to the gigantic battles that took place in Europe at the same time.
@joonte1010 Small? What do you call the French and Indian War, then? Where both the French and their Native American allies were routed and broken? Where England incurred so many debts they were forced to pass the Intolerable Acts? Is that just a skirmish to you? And then France subsequently bankrupted itself financing the Revolution, which then caused the French Revolution that eventually put Napolean in power, setting the stage for numerous wars prior to his ultimate defeat.
sweden i choose you!
BERNTRR 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
russa has many children to spare
Brakoulis 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Brakoulis 2 weeks ago
Sweden <3
Elfmannen 1 month ago
I vote Russia
snowleopard7991 1 month ago
i vote russia
snowleopard7991 1 month ago
Sweden + Russia = LOVE
thokih1 1 month ago
i love watching swedish blue mercilessly cut down russian green.
Trainz476 2 months ago
I'm Asian and i love how Europeans Kill each other mercilessly
Trybut3 2 months ago
@Trybut3 As if asians didnt.
Atamv 2 months ago
@Trybut3 HAHAHA as if asians dont kill each other
thokih1 1 month ago
@Trybut3 asia includes china and japan... japan made the biggest human genocide in the history of mankind to china, in one city they raped and killed over 2 million people... and that was a small chinese village... you guys are worse than naziz and commies...
BERNTRR 1 month ago
@BERNTRR i know but not all asians are like that
Trybut3 1 month ago
i am sewden :D hahahhaha we los in the game :(
alikung99 5 months ago
Yes Europeans destroy one another woooh!!
Mocotaugan 5 months ago
this is not war this is art
MrThePsychologist 5 months ago
If you all really take this video this seriously, then why dont you go to armies of respectively Russia and Sweden and have a real war rather than half-literate row without any use of proper historical evidence, arguments or conclusions. If you just feel like shouting out that "[INSERT A NAME] SUCKS!", do it somewhere else, seriously!
MaximStolyarov 6 months ago
if sweeden had their artillery then they would have shown those sill rus a thing or two.
Crushen123949 7 months ago 3
But still Russia won. Hakkapeliitas would kick both's ass.
Ozku9 7 months ago
all swedish have mustaches
Wffle95 7 months ago
It's quite amazing that once in history my home country Sweden once posed a serious threat to Russia.
Fralle89 7 months ago 2
In war, no one wins. You should leave part 2 as a mystery. I am Swedish, but as I said in war no one wins.
Clarke5409 7 months ago
Mother Russia!
PetrusKilrochovich73 8 months ago
@JarnsidaViking
Donth you think it's better if you take some off the
lingvestik elixir could vodka then you would easy understand
my dysslektiv Swed-Anglo-Amerikan lingvestik.
By'e the way when I put a litel snaps in old FieldMaster Banher
(alsow could the Snake ore the Butcher off Bömia)
glasses I remember that he was alway's best commande as drunk
he hade abstinens etc he was terribly bad.
And I alway's think you wanth to understand you will understand
God bless the King
tjallew 8 months ago
@JarnsidaViking
And then Fredrick the Great get hi's ass kicked by'e Russian army any way.
Saved by'e Tzaritza Katharina the Great the cousin to King Gustav lll
the King that get killed on he's own Opera House
but not before a litel Opera war with dear cousin 50 000 dead, fore what?
Russia winn land battle+ Sweden Navy battle =remi fore the momenth soon to chandge, everything Napoleon
tjallew 8 months ago
but Peter The Great of Russia had conquered so much and decmated all other armies and revolutionized warfare for his day.
drunkenleprachaun 8 months ago
@drunkenleprachaun
Tzar Peter The Great was a Exelent student he alway's learning bye mistacke's
and developing hi's possition.
It's not fore fun he salut Marchalk Rensköld and he's stab in victory tent in Poltava
saying - Tank's to those that learnd us to fight war's.
Marchalk Rensköld reply- not nice bye the student so badly beat the Teatcher,
What Tzar Peter learned?
The Swed taktik was old donth give the enemy chanse to supply's
They hade destroid endless Germ+Danich army's that way
tjallew 8 months ago
:'( its so sad
wigster600 8 months ago
watch?v=mshagu47xGg
vfg1997 8 months ago
enfin une video ou on ne sennui pas, ou la music est bien accorder avec le jeux video qui reflette bien certaine guerre
TheGuillaume70 8 months ago
me gusta el video pero tengo duda por k se formabean en elugar de ir al disparo total era mas preferible tener sable k un fusil
DarckThePhanTom 9 months ago
@JarnsidaViking and i care why?
MrPhantomLand 9 months ago
who would charge a foe without fixing bayonets? Bayonetless muskets can be seen all through out the final melee
czs5056 10 months ago
russia wins end of
MacPherson97 10 months ago
At 2:06 a green dude gets stole in his jaw :D
MrPowpowell 10 months ago
Back in that day Americans were guerillas that kicked British ass (no offense meant to anybody)
MrPowpowell 10 months ago
War is not a matter of heart or brain, Its the combination of both
NoRacismInThisWorld 10 months ago
my country is neighbour of both these countryes........know wat it is?
tapani97 10 months ago
im irish sooo... GO SWEDS
Ryanjoe090 10 months ago 27
did you know tht only 10 % of the swedish army was from sweden? :)
lukasden1 10 months ago
Comment removed
LakerolProduction 9 months ago
@lukasden1
That is not true. In the other countries of Europe they used Mercenaries or Convicts from other countries. While Sweden used soldiers from Sweden. 90% of our army consisted of Swedish farmers, workers even people in the higher class almost nobility. The rest is from our trustworthy friends the finns. Since they have been with us dating 800 years back. They used the Hakkapeliita finnish elite light cavalry unit
So note Sweden's army consisted of Sweds and Finns. Get your facts son!
LakerolProduction 9 months ago
im swedish sooo... GO SWEDS
iwwarmachine 10 months ago
if this was real sweden would have fu#ked up russia big time
Ezek2011 10 months ago
They are both great nations.
Why not end the video in peace........and go fuck some english UP!
DMCshift 10 months ago
im swedish but love russia too
MsterClan 11 months ago 16
@MsterClan lol. are you kidding russia sucks. kgb are dicks. there is fucking glass everywhere. and moskow has the most wild dogs than any other city! but they can kick ass in a war.
SmokeytheBear66 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokeytheBear66
you are just jealous...
harrikelm 5 months ago
@SmokeytheBear66 Russia does not equal moscow.
FlourescentPotato 5 months ago 5
What!?!?!? Swedes exchanging musket volleys? This is so wrong! One volley when you see the withe of their eyes and then charge at them with swords and pikes
meanmanturbo 11 months ago
that was fuckin brilliant best empire film i seen yet no one ever shows the up close muskets volleys thats what these wars were like not fucking cavalry
budluv420 11 months ago
Just think how warfare has changed since these times.
Hencytjo 1 year ago
haha everyone is so friggin patriotic( however thats spelled)
vafaneh 1 year ago
That was epicness at it's best.
ConsularCandidate 1 year ago
In my opinion Russia hasen't won a single war since their losses has allways been great, I don't know why they allways use their numbers insteed of training.
MrRikardoe 1 year ago
If the whole world took on Sweeden, Sweeden would win.
May God help us all.
InflatedSnake 1 year ago
As a norwegian, i play as sweden and destroy Denmark asap.. shitty country.. I wish norway and sweden was one country again. That would be the best for both countries imo for several reasons i cba explain
peram93 1 year ago
@peram93 I agree my good sir, But i don't think you guys want to have Tensta and rinkeby.
MrRikardoe 1 year ago
Remember, both nations were great strategists, both have great leaders, Karl XII were a great king, but Peter I The Great were greater (Hence the title The Great). English, Polish, French, ALL eropean nations will bent to this, for in the time, russia had an upper hand. Just That!
Luck IS a determining factor in war, and russia were luckyer. Sweden is a great nation to be reckon with, so as russia, for she survived 900 years, and still count!
So relax people!And enjoy a Russian victoy in a GAME
Arthorius89 1 year ago
Sweden won Finland's freedom, and that's to be remembered. Also to be remembered is that Sweden have been one of this world's strongest and most fearful countries in Europe.
Gameomg 1 year ago
On the battlefield (or anywhere else) one Swedish man is worth at least 10 Russian men. Sadly, Russian generals don't care how many they lose and view their men as toilet paper to be used up and thrown away. It was only through weight of numbers and callous disregard for their own troops that the Russian 'generals' (I use the term loosely) were ever able to 'win' a battle against the Swedes.
stonem001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck!, we lost finland >:(
williammoller9 1 year ago
omg how did those Swedish soldiers reload so quickly?????????????
TalonMercenary 1 year ago
usuing these tactics the swedes would lost badly. In this vid they use common line infantry tactics, which Sweden seriously lacked the manpower to afford. Instead the caroleans used charge tactics. Generally a swedish musketeer never reloaded in a battle, they fired their muskets at 50 meters, except the 2 front ranks that fired at either 30 meters or just before calshing into the enemy ranks.
GriffinZabaton 1 year ago
@GriffinZabaton well your right the swedes were often outnumbered in like 2-1. The musketeers often walked right into enemy fire until ca 30 metres from the enemy or as Karl X!! said until they saw the white in the enemies eyes. Then they fired once and went into melee combat. Tough the swedes often had superior cavalry numbers so they could wipe out the enemy cav and then flank or just crush the enemies lines from the front. Even if sweden had superior tactics i dont think they had enough men.
Dohman13 1 year ago
guys this is just a game if you want to discuss this go to a forum or something I mean it`s just a game it`s just a bunch of kids playing a game with each other it`s not a big meeting or debate
spartan3305 1 year ago
@spartan3305 welcome to Youtube, where every video has morons arguing over either history or politics. LOL
TalonMercenary 1 year ago
@TalonMercenary sir you win the internet
basktboy06 1 year ago
Joonte1010 i'm totaly disagree with you... If there wasn't those 6 nations who'll dominate the world?
Actually luck and resources play main role in every war. In case of war Russian vs. Sweden there were situation where modern Sweden fleet (in general frigates) wasn't able to fight with russian galley (Gangyth battle).
The point is Russia win this war Sweden lose. Just like Mongolia, France, Turkey, Germany. But it cost too much. And Sweden people stopped their imperial age after these war.
atomic772 1 year ago
Wow Historians, Patriots and Sociopaths, stop debating historical accuracy on an Empire Total War vid.
PivotChipmunk 1 year ago
hey heres an idea why not solve all your histrocial war related arguments over a game of Empire total war ;-)
Griceyboy 1 year ago
The ending should be like Star Wars xd!
IcYInHD 1 year ago
im from finland and sweden sucks XD even shitty russia is better...
hunttari 1 year ago
2:27
CHUCK NORRIS GOT OWNED!!!
This is really a Soviet Russia
Scoutrussp7 1 year ago
@Scoutrussp7 nope, he took a nap.
megakillerx 1 year ago
epic video!
BowofRama10 1 year ago
I like both the Russian and the Swedish through there strategies of warfare. Now to see them fight in modern warfare would be epic.
peacefulwarrior96 1 year ago
@peacefulwarrior96 russia would win because they habe a bigger army
HouseOfFoster 1 year ago
@HouseOfFoster Or like in the history, they burn everything and fall back and attacked in small grupp
mongwai89 1 year ago
@machinima what do you use to capture the videos?
darthpfeil87 1 year ago
lol i just finished to destroy sweden in the empire total war with russian faction:)
superplayer736 1 year ago
go sweden, our lovely neigbours :)
ryssland kan suga kug
ruutukalsari 1 year ago
I'm proud to be swedish Sverige!!
resurgentSS 1 year ago
@resurgentSS So am i, the swedish history is amazing!
Bakkese 1 year ago
@Bakkese it is but but i emigrated to canada so i dont know too much but the stuff i know is way more intersting than canadas
resurgentSS 1 year ago
100 men can win over 1000 whit good strategy thats what 300 learned us ;) GO SWEDEN
haualo 1 year ago
Sweden captured the Russian access to the Baltic after having betrayed it in 1617 (previous to that, Russia and Sweden were allies against Poland). After that the Swedish were occupied with economic blackmail demanding money from Russian merchants who wanted to trade with Europe. So if Sweden just peacefully gave the Russian Baltic coast back, it could have avoid the humiliation of the Great Northern War and the loss of the great power status.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey Humiliation of the Great Northern War? You do realise Sweden kicked ass in this war, Poltava was indeed a big defeat but we made a reputation of ourselfs as the most elit fighting force at the time. Our king Karl XII and his father Karl XI dedicated thier lifes into the army, Karl XII sleept under the bare sky whit his men and in the same uniform, ate the same food and even made pillageing punishable by death. You should read a book about him.
tyskbulle 1 year ago
@tyskbulle Sweden fought well, but politically it behaved very foolishly. A country with such a low population should not overstretch itself and overestimate its might. Else a catastrophe is programmed. For example, Sweden should have realized that the occupation of the Neva delta and Russian baltic coast is a time bomb and that Russia would get it back sooner or later. If Sweden knew its place and behaved wisely it could have avoided wars and probably keep the Baltic states until today.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey Not a reality, politically the baltic trade had been the source for swedish wars for hundreds of years, specialy during the 30 year war period. I dont think russia woud have settled whit small coastlines in the baltic. Eventualy more wars woud follow. In 1809 all of Finland and parts of northen Sweden were lost in another war russian war of aggresion, proveing that the baltic and southern Finland wasn´t enough. Karl XII was also a hard drilled soldier, and sutch was his thinking.
tyskbulle 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
Had Sweden done that we wouldn't had been a Great Power. Had we given Russia access to the Baltic all we've fought for over the past 100 years would've been for nothing. Dominum Maris Baltici.
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@k1lkenny Greed is not good. This were ancient Russian lands (from 8th century on) and you wanted to get merchants' money for nothing. You have to learn to share, if you don't want to lose it all.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
Yeah cause the Russians weren't greedy at all. The expansionism by Russia in the 18th and 19th century was grand to say the least.
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@k1lkenny If you learned history, you would know that the vast majority of the Russian Empire's territory joined Russia either voluntarily (Ukraine, Ossetia, Bashkiria, Kabardy, Georgia, Yakutia etc.) or were taken from foreign occupants, partly with local joy (e.g. Belarus, Armenia). In other cases the conquered territories had a long tradition of attacks and slavetrade (Crimean and Volga Tatars, Central Asians). There were no similar motives in the Swedish conquests in the Baltics. Just greed.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
That's a load bs. Like they had any choice. And then again, how about stealing all the Swedish possessions south of Finland? None of those wanted to become Russian, with the exception of Ingiria perhaps, Estonia put themselves under Swedish protection and rule by choice in mid 1550s so that we could protect them from the Russians. Only reason Peter wanted access to the Baltic was cause he wanted to escape Swedish traffis. Money was the only reason Russia waged war on Sweden.
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
How about you read a book :) And I can't for a million dollars believe Russia invaded and took cause they wanted to abolish slave-trade in those nations. Russia was build on serfdom till mid 1800s, which is ridicules. (Russians were hence slaves to the nobles, which is so backwards I nearly can't believe it)
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@k1lkenny Russia took revenge for century-long attacks slave trade which affected ethnic Russians in the borderlands. What concerns Finland: I doubt whether Finns liked the Swedish so much, they were occupants and subjugartors. This was just a switch. Within the Russian Empire, the Grand Duchy of Finland had a broad autonomy, freedom from military service and many other liberal rules it didn't have before. Sweden betrayed Russia in the beginning of the 17th century and needed to be punished.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
You're a hypocrite. And Finland as a nation didn't even exist before the swedes COLONISED it. You're talking about Sweden taking old Russian territory well Finland was the eastern part of Sweden. Yeah that's right it was actual Sweden, finns never complained about being Swedish cause that's what they were, swedes, east Swedes. Sweden is one of the oldest nations on earth, and when Sweden was established Finland was already in it!
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@k1lkenny Sweden captured old Russian territory not in Finland, but on the shores of the Neva. The strategic access to the Baltic. It happened in 1617 (Treaty of Stolbova) after Sweden betrayed Russia after being allied with her against Poland. Sweden benefited from Russian interiour problems (Time of troubles) and massacred the population of Novgorod before it robbed Russian lands. With this crime Sweden made itself Russian enemy and later got its punishment: the loss of the great power status.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
Erm yes I know all this, though I said nothing of it in my previous post cause that wasn't what it was about. And we hardly back stabbed you, I do guess you know that many Russians at the time wanted a Swedish prince as the new Czar, and the good Russians waited for him as well, however it took too long and eventually the Romanovs took the power. You can hardly blame a nation for using it influence in a power vacuum. Picking the Romanovs made Russia our enemy.
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@k1lkenny The Russians wanted a Swedish prince as new Czar? Do you have serious sources for this? Why would an Orthodox people want to have a foreign ruler of a foreign faith? Sounds like a myth. The Russians chose the Romanovs, that's explainable. But a Swedish prince? And yes, I can blame another nation for using the weakness of the other. In this case, such a nation can't complain when it is forced to pay the price afterwards.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
Hmm I'm stunned, You seemed to have at least some knowledge in history yet you've missed this fact? If you read history from books rather than on wikipedia this wouldn't had come as a surprise. The religion weren't a problem since the prince would have converted - It was rather a problem for the Swedish bishop cause he didn't want the prince to convert from protestantism. It's not a myth however. Charles Philip, son of Charles IX was offered the throne.
k1lkenny 1 year ago
@k1lkenny I was right, Charles Philipp was not the choice of the people. He was a proposition of some Novgorod boyars who expected more liberties. The fact the he was not chosen is not a reason to declare war because Russia didn't have any obligations in this matter. The choice of Romanovs was, on the contrary, a choice by Zemsky sobor, a National assembly where many groups of the society were represented. BTW, the Swedish betrayal occured much earlier, in the Battle of Klushino, 1610.
PernatyZmey 1 year ago
@PernatyZmey
That hardly matters, he was offered the throne, they waited for him. He took to long, they picked another one instead. End of story.
k1lkenny 1 year ago
Sverige eide :D
Enik2137 1 year ago
@joker7420
thx for the comic relief.
barnaulishe 1 year ago
FUCK YEA SWEDEN RULES! Btw im from Sweden and i love America ;)
SirKillerBunny 1 year ago
To all the danish dicks, russian retards and polish pricks: Sweden would have pwnd the living fuck out of each and every one of you one on one. Your armies stank and you were all cowards to team up like that. SWEDISH POWER!
NHLfreak87 1 year ago
@NHLfreak87 nu är du orättvis och ganska rasistisk
Alsemenor 1 year ago
@Alsemenor Äh, lev med det. Det är ju sant. Sverige hade fanimej en armé som krossade allt på den tiden. De gick ju ihop över fem länder mot oss. Inte undra på att de lyckades. Det var fegt av dem och de borde inte vara stolta. Och nej, jag är inte rasist. Jag är patriot. Förstår du skillnaden? :)
NHLfreak87 1 year ago 2
@NHLfreak87 Dem gick inte ihop mot oss, Danmark och resten av anfallarna hade ingen allians, Danmark passade helt enkelt på att kniva oss i ryggen och fick på käften i samma runda :D
adamcarlsson 1 year ago
@adamcarlsson Du har rätt. Men jag menade inte att de hade en allians av någon sort. Jag menade helt enkelt att de var 5-6 länder som alla attackerade oss samtidigt :). Som du säger så gick det ju ändå åt helvete för danskarna :P. Vilka pussys, eller hur? :P
NHLfreak87 1 year ago
@NHLfreak87 Självklart! :D Kungen ägde dem via isen!
(Men jag har släkt i Danmark)
adamcarlsson 1 year ago
@adamcarlsson Lol Karl XII for the epic ninja win :P. Jasså? Mycket släkt eller? :)
NHLfreak87 1 year ago
@NHLfreak87 Nej, morfars sida av släkten. Men jag hatar nog danskar mer än någon annan, för jag vet hur de beter sig socialt... Som fulla svin!!! Allvarligt.
adamcarlsson 1 year ago
@adamcarlsson Helt rätt :). Dom är lite svinaktiga eller hur? Lol nu tog du fram mitt danskhat :P. Sen ska man ju inte börja prata om det där lätet som dom kallar för ett språk :P.
NHLfreak87 1 year ago
@Alsemenor Och vill du snacka orättvist så kan vi ju prata om hur dessa länderna till slut besegrade Sverige.
NHLfreak87 1 year ago 2
I love the russians here going "Oh, why did Sweden lose to Russia if you're so awesome?"
Because Russia ganged up with 6 other nations on us surrounding all our borders, that's why. It's a bit like those cowardly kids at a school who don't dare to protest, so they have to gang up on the guy they don't like, just like the sissies they are.
I've always liked Russia, but claiming that Russia "owned" Sweden in the Great Northern War is disgracefully historically inaccurate.
Andrekky 1 year ago 54
@Andrekky russia also had a large army and a large amount of space and power in there country
theupperdec 1 year ago
@Andrekky russia also had a large army and a large amount of space and power in there country all they have to do is retreat in to there country untill there enemy is weak then attack with a large army
theupperdec 1 year ago
@Andrekky Sweden could have taken russia if Sweden would'nt have attacked litua or estonia or whatever it was.
SweetZoid 1 year ago
@Andrekky So then Russia did win? It just shared its victory with 6 other nations. Sounds like a good strategy to me.
AndrewzDescent 1 year ago
@AndrewzDescent
Of course they won. After getting trashed over and over again, by a country whose population was one of the smallest in europe in relation to it's landmass. It's so sad, that Russia only barely won despite those odds.
If Sweden was equally cowardly, we'd have allied with August after giving him his beatings, and gone to Moscow that way. But some of us have morals, even in war.
But I guess Russia wouldn't know much about that, looking at it's history.
Andrekky 1 year ago 26
@Andrekky Regardless, Russia has never been conquered, never has, never will.
TheRedRussianCossack 11 months ago
@TheRedRussianCossack russia is extremely flat.
so the next invasion will grip Moscow
Peppepoppldoppl 11 months ago
@TheRedRussianCossack soviet xP
david882011 8 months ago
@Andrekky It wasnt that hard for Russia to win... The rusian tzar was in another place with the army, conquering lands in another war as i recall it while King Carl atacked and advanced into inland... Also, as usual, Russia relyed on its great lands to trap the fins inside...
Zanator1 7 months ago
@Zanator1
Yes. Czar Peter had an almost awkward tendency to disappear from his army prior to a major defeat, if memory serves. So being absent from the field of battle can be more credited to fear than anything else.
Whereas Carolus was with his troops at the front the whole time, leading his men as a commander is meant to do, he was present at the field even while wounded, even in defeat. I guess that kind of settles who was actually the greatest monarch and general.
Andrekky 7 months ago
@Andrekky Yes, the one who modernized Russia, who conquered so much of Finland, who brought up his country out of the middle ages into the light, who went to study in the west as a simple scholar, not a king, and who drew the fins so deep inside Russia that they couldnt escape! That would be Tzar Peter the GREAT as he is called!
Zanator1 7 months ago
@Zanator1
Oh please. Look at a map and realise that it was just a tiny bit of land that was actually conquered. Sure, it may have ruined our Dominium Maris Baltici, but that's not for Peter to take credit for. Once again, he was a coward who only dared to attack when ganging up on Sweden, and bombarded us with peaceofferings the moment things didn't go his way.
The reason he withdrew so back into Russia was quite simple; He knew he couldn't defeat the Swedish Carloeans. Not even 10 to 1.
Andrekky 7 months ago
@Andrekky Tzar Peter the great was a man of great value and there is no fin king or poet or builder to be as renown as him! WTF, more people know about Tzar Peter than of the existance of finalnd! So please, a little respect for mighty russia, and next time you flame a country, make sure youre not from a pety worthless country!
Zanator1 7 months ago
@Zanator1
Hahahah, oh you fool. Take a look at the livingstandards of each country. Who takes care of it's people? I can tell you it's not Russia. If you asked a foreigner where he'd like to live, it would be in Sweden and not in your semi-dictatorship.
Besides, if Finland is so small and worthless, how come they KICKED YOUR BUTT in WW2? You didn't even dare to invade any of the Scandinavian countries during the Cold War, not even the neutral ones.
Don't bark when you suck at biting.
Andrekky 7 months ago
@Zanator1
Also, you're really ignorant if you believe more people know about Peter than those who know about Finland. Finland is a country who started off as a vassal of yours and now the average Finn has a better life than the average Russian. You should speak of them with respect. Glory to the Nordic countries.
Also, you boast with how Tzar Peter modernized Russia? Well, considering how technologically backwards and retarded Russia was at the time, that's not saying very much.
Andrekky 7 months ago
@AndrewzDescent And burning villages and towns, Stealing cattle and wheat to starve your enemies army and your own people. Was that a good strategy?
MrRikardoe 1 year ago
@Andrekky The Swedish Caroleans (the soldiers) were regarded to have been maybe the most effective military troop of that day and they were very effective, since the swedish army of those days couldn't rely on numbers they went for effective trained troops. Respect to them! Some people say the british soldiers were the best but I think not.
FreedomFighter08 1 year ago 50
@FreedomFighter08 "People" say this because British troops are among the most recognizable to the untrained mind. Even if someone does not know the least bit about history he or she can more than likely identify a British soldier from the muskets era. By the time of the Great Northern War the Swedish army had reached its apex, and its reputation as arguably the most effective fighting force in Europe would soon be displaced by Prussia. Britain's army does not measure up until much later.
HHFD50 11 months ago
@HHFD50 " "People" say this because British troops are among the most recognizable to the untrained mind."
Because of all the movies made, You dont see any French,German,Swedish e.t.c making movies about their own history. Its only English history and American history sadly.. And im quite fed up by watching tea drinking sissies with red coats in movies. Or American terminator movies which is laughable.
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 so only americans and british people make historical movies, right? then i guess the samurai trilogy, telling the story of Musashi Miyamoto, made in japan, was never created? or that the german film "Downfall", telling the story of the fall of nazi germany, doesnt exist? or the french film Joyeux Noël, telling the story of the christmas cease fire of World War I, was just made up. does the swedish film The Emigrants ring any bells? depicting an emigration from sweden to minnesota?
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 What kind of movies do you see at the cinema? I was telling that english why so many recognise the English Red coats easily, Its because they have made so many movies about them. Russia is starting to make movies about their history but their movies are just as inaccurate as the US ones (The patriot is a good example).
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 The Patriot is historical fiction. Its MEANT to not be true. What your forgetting, however, is that the backdrop is. It uses fictional battles and ambushes alongside historical battles to show what the war was like. If you want to be technical about, probably the only battle played straight in that film is the Battle of Yorktown, though I do look with pointed measure at French involvement in the war.
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@joonte1010 as for the whole "tea drinking sissies" thing, just remember that those "tea drinking sissies" were considered the most powerful empire of the time, kicking ass all over europe. i think they're entitled to a little tea/
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 The English never fought a war alone, They allways had their allies and they didnt have the most powerfull armies, The English were more interested in their naval and to establish colonies around in the world. Powerfull armies the French,Prussia and Swedes in their earlier stage had.
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 Your right, the English never fought alone. And they never had the most powerful armies. Instead, they had some of the best generals of the time. If you've seen any film or documentary, you'll realize that numbers aren't exactly keys to victory. Aside from that, the English didn't NEED an army. England, for all of it's vaunted glory, is an island. So, going by that logic, they would have the most powerful navy after the destruction of the Spanish Armada.
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 Best generals? I have only heard about one general named Marlbourough and Nelson the naval admiral. Otherwise i think their generals had the same standard as the rest of Europes. You also forget that England most of the times used a bigger army in their battles than their opponents.
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 I'm talking primarily about the men who commanded the British during the American Revolution, such as Cornwallis and Gage. Or even Montgomery of WWII. And of course there was George Washington. And before you get on to me about that, I am talking about the French and Indian War, not the Revolution. Then of course there were the commanders of Waterloo. And yes, I know they had other guys on that field but my point stands. As for bigger army, there have been several occasions where...
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@joonte1010 ... the English have been completely outnumbered and STILL defeated their opponents, such as the Siege of Savannah Other officers would include Benedict Arnold and Thomas Howe, as well as numerous other exceptional commanders. As of allies, I would like to point out the conquering of Wales and Scotland for lonesome England, as well as frequent victories in the early American Revolution, often without help. Not to mention Lexington and Concord. Wow. I've written way too much.
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 The War England had against the American colonists isnt something to brag about since the English got defeated by an army of peasents. And the conquering of Wales and Scotland? They were lesser advanced and lacked the organised armies the English had.
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 Did I say they won? And I prefer the term "colonists", especially since the grand majority of those "peasents" were former BRITISH military, especially the Generals, woodsmen who knew the terrain and lay of the land, and people who could get geared up and ready for battle within a MINUTE. And it doesnt matter how advanced a nation is, it can still beat someone with superior firepower. A rather heartrending example would be Vietnam. As for Scotland? Battle of Falkirk. Wales...
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 Yes, Scotland and Wales managed to win some battles against the English even thou they were lesser armed and had lesser men. Alright, Colonists. It doesnt change the fact that they aswell were lesser armed and trained then the English soldiers. The English history have been raised to the sky because of all the movies made but the fact is that they were more of a Colony power, They had their colonies and protected them with their navy. Read about France and Prussia instead..
joonte1010 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 France and Prussia had the best armies and often fought alone with great success.
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 Do I really need to say this? Fine, here goes: WATERLOO. WORLD WAR I. WORLD WAR II. THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR. France gets its butt handed to it so many times throughout history its pathetic. As for Prussia, you leave out the fact they were often fighting EACH OTHER in unification wars. They eventually became the German Empire, which fell to pieces and became the Weimer Republic, which then became the THIRD REICH.
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 The hundred years war was actually a French victory, Napoleon in Waterloo werent the same as he was earlier during the Napoleon war. World war I and World war II was all about Germany, Prussia had a strong military with proud military traditions. England were nothing against either one of them alone.
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 My mistake on the Hundred Years war. Napolean almost won Waterloo, and would have if he'd had a better position to view the battle. WWI was mostly fought by British and American troops because the French had been pushed back to Paris. And as for the England standing thing: England stood alone for nearly two years, beating back Hitler every time he tried to order an invasion. His naval forces were continuously destroyed by British air raids, and his great Luftwaffte couldnt retake...
tomclancy008 10 months ago
@tomclancy008 Napoleon would most likely have won if the weather conditions were better aswell! But shut up now, ill answer your comments later!
joonte1010 10 months ago
@joonte1010 did you just reply to my comment on code geass.
tomclancy008 10 months ago
@tomclancy008 yeah i did :P
But yeah a truce on this video right now! until tomorrow atleast.
joonte1010 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joonte1010 did you just reply to my comment on code geass?
tomclancy008 10 months ago
@tomclancy008 WW1 was mostly fought by British and Americans?.... um.... The US didn't enter the war until 1917. The French and British fought on an allied front for the 3 years leading up to that. I'm not saying that the US didn't contribute (because it did. A lot.), but they didn't do nearly as much as the French (which is to be expected, seeing as the war on the Western Front took place almost entirely in France).
Unless I misunderstood your comment, in which case I apologize. :)
Fribnibby 10 months ago
@Fribnibby It was British and American troops who made some of the final major pushes. As I said in the comment, France was exhausted by the war and had been pushed back to Paris. The fact that they managed to hold for so long deserves the utmost respect. But make no mistake: France was demolished in WWI.
tomclancy008 10 months ago
@joonte1010 ... air superiority. The United States did not go anywhere near Europe until the Invasion of Italy, and Hitler's invasion of Russia failed miserably. British and American forces then proceeded to land on the beaches of Normandy in 1944, with intelligence and sabatoge gained from both paratroopers and members of the French Resistance. The only time Britain showed any true weakness was when they put that dumbass Montgomery in charge of Operation Market Garden. That idiot killed more...
tomclancy008 10 months ago
@joonte1010 ... Americans than the Germans did.
tomclancy008 10 months ago
@joonte1010 ... actually invaded England first and was only defeated because of infighting. And your discounting your statement about the English not having the most powerful armies.
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 How am i discounting my statement about something that is obvious? Look at the wars France and England had with eachother (England allmost only fought France while France have fought all of europe throughout history and had their interest to try and dominate in Europe)
joonte1010 11 months ago
@joonte1010 We saw how well THAT turned out, now didnt we? As for England and France fighting mainly each other its probably because France is on the MAINLAND. They are literally directly across from England, seperated only by the Channel. OF COURSE England's only main enemy was France. That and your forgetting that the Spanish and French were allies and often fought England together. The grand majority of these confrontations took place in the New World, such as the French and Indian War...
tomclancy008 11 months ago
@tomclancy008 France had the power in Europe back then, Why do you think all the culture was French inspired? The confrontations between France and England in the new world were small compared to the gigantic battles that took place in Europe at the same time.
joonte1010 11 months ago 2
@joonte1010 Small? What do you call the French and Indian War, then? Where both the French and their Native American allies were routed and broken? Where England incurred so many debts they were forced to pass the Intolerable Acts? Is that just a skirmish to you? And then France subsequently bankrupted itself financing the Revolution, which then caused the French Revolution that eventually put Napolean in power, setting the stage for numerous wars prior to his ultimate defeat.
tomclancy008 10 months ago