King Gustavus Adolphus was one of my childhood heroes. Sad he died thus so young.
War is bad.
Tyranny is worse!
Please be patient with America, dear friends. We suffer under the rule of rich oligarch who abuse the ideals and traditions they use to gull and fool us into unjust policy and acts. Their actions mock our history. We awaken slowly, but we awaken. We will win our liberty again!
@tjallew Tack själv för slag märka. Den god önskan av du och mig den här lik du ger oss den styrka vi nöd till slagsmål den pressar om oligarki.
(Thank you for kind note. The good wishes of you and those like you give us the strength we need to fight the forces of the oligarchs. We need a Gustavus today!)
What kind of ''tyranny'' do you think about? Too much of leftist ''ideas'', or too less? Liberty? There's too much ''liberty'' for n-words and muscums, not for white peoples? The same situation is everywhere! But Americans really fight against our enemies (e.g. muslims) - you want to give them whole Europe... it's your ''awakening''! :)
@religiofob Greetings! In the context of the Thirty Year War, I refer to the tyranny of the Roman Church as led by the Borgia Popes and their immediate successors. Nothing more.
I view Islam as very, very tyrannical. Worse than the Roman Church of the 1600s. I exhort my Representatives in Congress to keep up to fight against Wahabism and wonder why we do not target the Muslims of Arabia. I have a daughter. Islam is the greatest threat she faces.
@religiofob Wahabi Islam hates America because of our tolerance and because every street screams sin to their strange sensibilities.
The American State may be powerful, but the people have been made poor by the tyranny of the rich oligarchs: the 1% who hold 90% of our wealth. They now act to steal our democracy by passing laws to restrict the freedom of the vote. They fan the embers of racism to flame again.Hail to Poland! Without Jan (III) Sobieski Europe might be Muslim today! Honor to him!
Dear Friend, it's a very naive idealism. There never will be a total equality and never was. The peoples are more rich or more poor because the ones are most creative and intelligent than others. But there never was such a wealth, liberty and humanitarity! In my opinion - too much: decadence, paranoic tolerance and vanishing of all values are the result. When muslims will be rule in Sweden (soon) you will long for bad America and its ''tyranny''.
@religiofob Greetings. I am William Moran of Schenectady New York. (bbgs.usa.media1@gmail.com). We could perhaps better communicate over a different medium, and I invite you to write me. I have many screen-pals around the planet. I enjoy communicating with them all (although the Muslims don't stay long).
I express an American Idealism and it is always naive. I strive to win back the nation into which i was born. I strive to protect our world from those who would destroy it by with intolerance.
Very nice to met you! :) I was sure you're Swedish... :) I have 2 questions:
1) What the ''intolerance'' is? If I object to immigration from3rd World am I intolerant? Who's a tolerant person? Someone who like black mob on the streets or rape 10 yr girls?
2) About ''socialism'', I thought of its politically correct ''way of thinking'' not real social achievements. Greetings!
PS. My english isn't very good so pardon my non-elegant style. :)
@religiofob Greetings. I am pleased to be writing you. We share many values.
Tolerance assumes a rule of law. I, too, object to law-breaking, illegal immigrants. I object to mob-violence and crimes against people and property.
Wahabi Islam (The Saudi Kingdom, Pakistan, others) is intolerant of all other religions. Live and let live I say about others faiths, but not about them. As they would destroy our culture, I would destroy theirs. I fell the same about Iran, but their youth are not so bad.
PS. Gustavus Adolphus II was a great king! I interested in history, I read Peter Englund's books and I was wonder one sentence of polish pre-word: ''Peter Englund returned Swedish history to Swedish peoples''. Really, the history is complete not important in Sweden? Are the Swedish the NATION yet? It is say you are ''a model socialist society''. A true socialist can't love her/his homeland... :)
@religiofob I believe the comment to which you refer about Englund means that for the first time in 100 years Sweden can claim an author of global stature who writes in their native language. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a higher than average measure of socialism. (Oddly enough, the first socialist reforms were instituted by kings, not democracies). Many elements of socialism no one objects to: public schools, roads, electrical delivery systems, airports... more. None self supported.
@religiofob After that we have the tyranny of the rich over the non-rich.
We have the tyranny of racism (Islam is racist)
These are complex matters. We must judge with deliberation and not be quick to accuse. but when the truth becomes apparent beyond doubt act accordingly.
America is still peopled by Europeans and has a culture descended from European cultures..
To speak of germans in regard of the 30year war is kind of misleading. There were saxons, bohemians, brandenburg-prussians. Germany wasnt a state or united realm and everyone fought each other during various conflicts. And this battle was not a decisive battle nor was it the biggest battle in the Thirty Years' War. It was the death of the swedish king that made this battle remarkable. Nothing else.
I really wonder what has happened to the Swedes: Once they did struggle with Poland and Russia for dominance in the Baltic Sea region and even challenged House Habsburg in its possession of the German imperial crown, under the great King Gustavus Adolphus! But today they do help the US of A and their NATO lackeys to bully tiny Libya. How did it come to this? The Swedes stayed neutral ever since the Napoleonic Wars, so I wonder why they have joined with the US of A now.
@BombBakers But in this troublous time what's to be done? Shall we go throw away our coats of steel, and wrap our bodies in black mourning gowns, numbering our Ave-Maries with our beads? Or shall we on the helmets of our foes tell our devotion with revengeful arms? If for the last, say ay, and to it, lords.
west Europ incompeten's handling Herr Hitler and Stalin, Sweden need badly a friendly nation
demokratik a big bonus so they send there Crown Prince +big delegation to Whashington
Oficely a diplomatik deal throw German wolf pack and minefield they made a deal that stay's Russia know it from day one? Us hade Air bases south Sweden 1944 Swed info all the time now we are in the third ww
against terrorism allied ex dearest enemy Russia sorry dyslektiv Swed-Anglo-Amerikan
@tjallew: Only the infamous English total submission in 1941 to the foul Americans is more disgraceful than the Swedish subjection you described all too well; under their Charles XII the Swedes attempted to defeat Russia alone and now have submitted without a fight to the Americans; this made their former glories base and sovereignty a slave, proud majesty a subject, state a peasant!
@tjallew: But you are aware that ere Bismarck there was no united Germany since the downfall of House Staufer, as House Habsburg held the German crown only in name, while the German principalities were in fact independent; so no excuses with a combined German and Polish power (and Prince Eugene, who spoiled the French hegemony dreams of Louis XIV, was not even involved); but that is not the question here: Charles XII fought and was defeated, later Sweden submitted without a fight!
@tjallew: But what has this excursus about the glorious history of old Sweden to do with the shame and disgrace of the current Sweden I spoke of initially?
@tjallew: Well, if the once warlike Swedes do not consider it shameful to be vassals of the timid Americans, I cannot help them to see their shame but it will be marked in history, as historians tend to make such sideline remarks about the bewildering changes in the course of history.
There were an majority of Swedes at Breitenfeldt, And more Swedes in the army then Scotts throughout the war. But After the Battle of Breitenfeldt Germans became the majority.
Not much time passed until the catholic league adopted the Swedish tactics though, what made the Swedes to win over and over again even though the tactics were to become more widespread was solely due to the Swedish commanders (Banér, Torstensson etc) They were simply the greatest, they were witty, fast and inventing.
No, for stating claims without backing them up while ignoring sources provided by others. For requiring ME to refute mine own position while corfirming yours by "reading it up" (not even bothering to name any literature). Something which is definitely your job.
"your ancestors "
Hardly, there were so few of you over here.
Btw,you're demonstrating that you're also a troll.
"Von einer nationalen zu einer paneuropäischen Streitmacht"
"ericson"
Take the first hit. Squeeze it through the babelfish translator. And there you are. As I said, you're free to back your claims up (Newsflash: Insisting you're right, ans telling me to shut up is no valid proof.) . Until then I'll consider your point mood. Just as coolthings ranting.
You can try to read any information about the battle of Breitenfeldt, And not just that one you have read which i never have heard about. Try to search for information about that battle.
I am right, Your not. The Swedes were much better fighters then the Germans, The Swedes at that era were considered among many historians today to have been the best trained soldiers at that era. Just like in the Great Northern War and the Caroleans.
Gustav II Adolfs revolutionary formations sertainly made his army the most modern and whit it most competent. But the dutch should be credited for fielding the best trained and diciplined troops at this era.
As for the Great Nordic war, countrys sutch as Great Brittan, France and Perussia fielded equal, if not better troops then the swedes. The caroline infantry made its succes whit high offensive moral and dicipline.
Your wrong, I`ll rather stick with the Historians and their claims. Historians all around Europe claims that the Swedes could put up the best armies in the 17th Century and the early 18th Century (Caroleans).
This is where you are wrong. In the 17th century, the dutch laid the foundations of Gustav II Adolfs formation reforms. In 18th century its is a possability that sweden had the best trained armie from 1700-1709. Sense the most experienced troops where lost at Poltava, after 1721 the Carolean infantry lackt experiance and quality equiptment. By the seven year war the swedish troops put up a good fight but they where behind in development and specialy in equiptment.
The true tribiute should go to Swedens warrior kings and its generals, they fiound the tactics that where so succesfull. No doubt about that the Swedish infantry at this time where among the best, but other nation had "least" equal troops. It easy to say Sweden had the best troops in the beginning of the 18th century but looking at training and equiptment, nations like Perussian infantry where equal only they didnt have the chance to prove themself at this time.
Wasn´t the caroleans tactic a counter against the tactics and training most armies in Europe used, and that includes Preussia, France and Great Britain. I have to agree with joonte1010 in this point ,even if he is an overzealous patriot, that most historians have given credits to the carolean army as Europes most effective army at this time. As Russia laid siege on Narva in 1700, the Caroleans manage form an army in less than two weaks, deafeat Denmark and reach Narva in three months.
well the caroleans infantry wasnt a proffesional army, it was farmers that where given a pice of land in return to army service, indeed they where drilled very well, mutch like a proffesional army but they still lackt time in training as proffesional armys had. They where drilled in one tactic and it was a volly then a steal charge, they didnt own the all around training and fire doctrine as the other europeans super powers had, but they got alot of experiance in the long campaigns.
Yes, i remember that they were ordinary conscripts and that they were offered some land and a small house for there services. But for what i understand they were thoroughly trained and drilled in combination with their hard farmer lives to withstand the pressure they had to endure on the battlefield. I have also read that when the caroleans were not at war, they had to undergo yearly drills and training to keep the army in shape in case of war.
Its all true, but i still question if they where more trained then proffessional armys of the UK, Prussia or France, they had after all extremly well trained and diciplined troops, but we never know. The Carolean tactics perhaps woudnt work so well against opponents that coud withstand more punishment then the weak drilled russian-polish lines. The saxon and danish armies charles faced where still not close to proffessional but they where more modern. Its safe to say perhaps we never know.
The Saxon armies were considered to have been of a very very high qualtiy, And they got defeated quite easily thanx to the aggressive tactic Charles used.
I have to agree with you about the dutch training and discipline though. They where used often as mercenaries during the entire 17th century. And people that knows the history about Gustavus Adolphus also knows that he used the tactics that Maurice of Nassau used during the Dutch Revolution as a template for his army reform.
Thats just bullshit, The Swedish during the early 18th Century were better soldiers then the French,Prussians and English.I think the battles proves that, We were allways fighting against bigger armies and won constantly until Poltava. The prussians,English or French never had any victories like Narva or Fraustadt,holowschyn. And the reason for their great succes was because of their offensive tactics,Fire one volley 30 meters from the enemies before they draw their swords and fought man to man.
I reckon you're talking to someone else, but, yes the Carolean army was probably the best drilled soldiers of the 18th century, they were disciplined, 'fearless' and hard. The psychological warfare the Carolean tactic used did indeed make the name "The Daemons from the north" very fitting. Though what we have to take into account is that the Swedish army never fought a western power and we can never know for sure, historians however agrees on their excellence.
Saxony wasn't France nor England. But yes if we look at that we could get some smaller indications. Eh heck let's just agree, the Caroleans were an awesome force.
Yes but i agree on your statements, It doesnt work to compare the Caroleans with the French,English or Prussians since they never fought eachother. But if you look at their tactics in warfare i think the Caroleans would have had an advance with their offensive tactic since the other European countrys mostly only used their weapons and manouvers?
The English,Prussian and French used a tactic which mainly consisted by using their rifle and manouvering their enemies, It wasnt as aggressive and offensive as the Swedish model. If you would have put a English or Prussian army instead of a Swedish Carolean the war would have ended much quicker with a defeat, Maybe as early as in the battle of Narva.
And claiming that the Dutch fielded the best troops in that era is also rubbish, Since they werent close to the quality the Swedish army later had during the 30 years war. Gustav II Adolf took some idèas from the dutch thats true, But he made a lot of changes in them and created new things. The Swedish infantery in that era were and is considered to have been the best. Reloading and open fire with their rifles three times faster then their enemies.
The Swedish conscripts of the thirty years war was not as experienced as the German mercenaries, they were however loyal to the crown, the Swedish troops were more often set as garrison rather then to be used on the battlefield (though they were that too), The point is that it was the Swedish tacticians and tactics the won the war not the conscripts - even though old German wardogs of course was preferred - Nationality played little roll, experience was sought for, Swedish or German the same-
The Swedes were better trained then the German merceneries, And often used on the most dangerous places on the battlefield (Center). The Germans hadnt gone through the same training as the Swedes which made them lesser valuable for the Swedish King. Thats why he often placed Swedish regiments in forts and towns to use later on.
I usually agree with you Jonte but this time I can't, Swedish troops were stationed as garrison cause they were loyal but less experienced - they just came from home - than the old German mercenaries - A mercenary could give up for money, nothing national troops really would do - , Swedish veterans was however just as good as any other experienced troop from other nationalities, they were all trained in the Swedish manner, where the soldier came from was of lesser importance.
well no, Gustav II Adolf made hes reform in Sweden with the etnic Swedish soldiers. You can take a look at the battle of Breitenfeldt. The Swedes relloaded and fired their weapons three times faster then the German troops on the catholic Side. And used another better formation when going into battle, Smaller formations instead of the Tercio Formations the German soldiers and merceneries used.
Absolutely, but any future German mercenary could be thought this as well - And they were -. Swedish national troops were of lesser relevance later into the war, Experienced troops which had fought the war for a decade were way more sought for, they knew the war. Don't make this an ethnicity question. It's simply Swedish tactical brilliance which won the war for Sweden (Gustav, Banér, Torstensson)
It took a long time, And that doesnt change the fact that the Swedish soldiers actually were better soldiers at that time during that war thanx to the reform which the battle of Breitenfeldt prooves, The first battle between the Swedes and the Catholics. Sweden also had their two Elit regiments in many battles, The old blue regiments e.t.c. But they were allmost completely wiped out during the battle of Lützen. But its true that the Swedish army later on allmost mainly had Germans.
Mainly Germans indeed, but hey what, We still won, It's cause these foreign troops were drilled in Swedish manner. In the beginning considering the Swedish force mainly consisted of Swedes and they were following this new style of fighting they automatically became the best - Since no one else was fighting in this new way -, but as I stated when you have the tools the Germans was to also become the best
Sorry joonte, i am sure this will annoy you but... I have to agree with k1lkenny. Nationality wasn't the important issue. Tactics, leadership and gold were. Anyway, the first Swedish interventions in the 30 years war was at Stralsund and Frankfurt where a large part of the "Swedish" infantry were Scottish mercenaries. Indeed, most of the Infantry at Breitenfield 1 were Scottish or German.
Bullshit, The army at breitenfeldt were allmost mainly Swedish, The battle were the first major battle Sweden fought in that war. The army were fresh and directly from Sweden, After the victory Germans started to join the Swedish army.
You can ask the maker of this video, He study Swedish history and knows about this. The battle of breitenfeldt consisted of mainly Swedes, Since their Saxon allies fleed in the beginning of the battle.
No thats OK. I am sure he is well read. I am only trying to point out that it is a matter of record that Gustavus recruited foreigners well before Breitenfield. Many of the Scottish were paid in Land and Titles. Check the Swedish Aristocracy.
You make it sound like we had an army of damn scotts in our army, Which is completely wrong, The army at the beginning were mainly Swedish, While the Germans became a majority in the Swedish army. And land and titles were only given on conquered areas and not in mainland Sweden since it was mostly given to etnic Swedes.
Yes you did have Scots in the Swedish army. Thousands of them. All the way back to Charles IX. Read up on Jakob Vilhelmsson Spens (Friher Orreholm) who did most of the UK recruiting for Gustavus since 1611. Then get back to me.
I completely agree. Germans were the majority of the "Swedish" army at Breitenfeld. Again, thats why the nobility of Sweden includes names like von Königsmarck, von Thurn, von Rosen etc. All of them at the battle. All of them given Swedish Titles. Most of the first 100 or so names in the riddarhuset fought for Gustavus. But you are right, Scots were in the minority. Only Lillie, Douglas, Spens, Hamilton and Sinclair. De la Gardie was French by the way...
Are you a fucking retard or something? You ignorant highland sheep, The Swedes were in majority in the battle of Breitenfeldt, While The Germans became majority further in to the war.
because of the Swedish victory at Breitenfeldt more Germans came and volountered in the army. Are you brain made out of Tea or something? This is starting to get really ennoying.
Well son, if you are going to just resort to denial and abuse without any reference to further sources then i reckon you need to research your history a bit more. Can you at least give me some idea of where you get your numbers from? Unit titles? Commanders? Anything?
First of all you can look at a list over the regiments who fought in the battle of breitenfeldt, And you will quickly realize that there were no Merceneries there. Mainly Swedish. And stop your damn Scot bullshit, We had German merceneries and many of them in the 30 years war, Yes. But not many of Scots.
I am bored with trying to teach you your own history. Please look up Green Brigade in Gustavus Army. Try wikipedia at least. Or just stay in denial. Good night.
Hello! I'm suprised to be taught in history from a comment on youtube but after looking up what you claimed to be the Green regiment I found information about it and one of it's leaders (the leader during Lützen) Thank you! And as a comment Sweden only brought 8-12 thousand swedes to Germany to begin with, the rest of the army consisted of drafted mercenaries.
@Wrangelful hhmmm ... let me think ... i guess i take this info from the book: Battles of the Thirty years war - From white mountain to Nordlingen 1618-1635 / By William P. Guthrie ;)
The Germans were the majority at Breitenfeldt, the Swedes were second-most, the Scots were not that numerous.
Also, this was very common at the time as you surely know, 200 years later at Waterloo about something like 16% of the British army was actually british, the rest were dutch/belgian troops.
At Brietenfield the Scots infantry were higher in numbers than the Swedish troops. But had a high percentage of Scots in the "Swedish" officer ranks. Which possibly explains the victory. But I agree at Waterloo, the British army had Dutch and Belgians in the coalition. And many Germans too. (Hanover, Brunswick, Nassau etc.) And probably depended on the Prussians arrival to win.
Actually not, counting both infantry and cavalry the Swedes outnumbered the scots by about twice as many, however, many regiments that were commanded by scots were not actually scottish but 100% German, which may be confusing.
@paddyalcorn That being said you truly lack an histocrical vein if you by a few samples draw a full conclusion. In logic it's a grave mistake to make up your mind or your opinion from a few silly facts. But lets be fair I do see how yoyur mind works: (IQ 75-) Uhhh yeah swedes haven't been in a war for 200 years...uuuuhh the be bad yeasss...ooohh yeah me smart nah *drool*. Like I said I dislike nationalism but You sir is a racist. Now run home to Momma if she's still alive.
Its nothing to argue about, THe battle of Breitenfeldt consisted of mainly Swedes, Thats why we won that battle. The etnic Swedes were much better trained then the Germans, We reloaded and fired our weapons three times faster then the Germans. Thats a Fact. If you cant deal with it? Then to bad for you.
The army at breitenfeldt were mainly Swedish, Thats the reason for the big sucess at the battle, The Swedes were better trained then the Germans and could reload and fire their weapons three times faster then the Germans in the Holy Roman Empire.
This campaign wasn't about rescueing saxony, but rather about preventing it from joining the imperial side.
The elector did not wish the imperialist to ravage his country, that's why he allied himself with the swedes. He had, however, no desire to help the swedish king to annex northern germany and turn the rest into satellites either.
Anyway, courtesy demands that only good things be said about deceased people. And so I state that it was a good thing that Gustav II Adolf died there.
The 30 Years war devastaded Germany and cut the population to half of what it had been before. Churches around my home still have the remains of thousands (skulls and bones) of citizens that starved or were killed in action then. Childen`s skulls and bones too. Citizens and farmers of all contributing countries had to pay the price. The 30 years war is still in the collective memory of the german people. Just google "30 years war" and "Magdeburg".
No they wouldnt, he saw that the Regiment was starting to go back in the battle, and he took command over it and put it in to battle again, the main battle was in the Center.
If u loose the Center u loose the whole battle, But the Swedish regiment Old Blue did it good.
Nej det var inga Finnar i första led, Infanteriet bestod i största del av Svenskar, och i Centern hade man alltid Svenskt infanteri, Där striderna skulle var som hårdast. För att Svenskarna var att lita på, Dom flydde inte så lätt. Dom stod kvar och kämpade.
jag håller med dej sulimaaren det finns så många krigsfilmer om usa:s krig men nästan inga om sveriges fastän sveriges krig skulle vart mycket bättre. sveriges historia innehåller så mycket som man vill veta mer om det är därför sånna här filmer är så bra
Fin video! Suck, vi får väl aldrig se en riktigt fet svensk film om stormakstiden...om ändå historia kunde bli lite mer "inne"...Det finns så himla mycket att filma!
Håller med dig Sulimaaren men nu har vi åtminstone Arn och det det kanske kan få film bolagen att öppna ögonen för svensk historia... Jag menar kolla patrioten amerikansk film om deras historia... Kolla zulu eller 300 Engelsk grekisk o Afrikansk historia varför kan inte Sverige göra film om sin historia?
antagligen för att svenskarna är helt avpatriotiserade efter lång tid av vänsterpropaganda. Dessutom är historieintresset i sverige fortfarande väldigt svagt.
Märkligt - är både patriot, vänster och historieintresserad. Tycker också det är synd att svenskarna skall vara så självhatande hela tiden, och de som inte är det brukar oftast tillhöra den bruna rörelsen. Tycker också det är synd att så få är intresserade av historia i allmänhet. Tycker snarare att liberalismen bör kritiseras för det här än vänstern.
History is mindblowing. It's a shame that it is so often presented to us in such a dull lifeless manner. I mean WOW, the Sweedish were fighters back then!? Was this what turned them into a land of castrated men.
Sweden as a country, has been around for almost a 1000 years, we've done our fighting, while USA is still a "young" country... But I guess you guys will settle down soon enough
haha no no, he only lead an Regiment in to battle again. Nothing which would change the outcome of the whole battle if he didnt, He was a Warrior king, he lead hes men in to battle.
sadly, hes horse was to fast and he end up right among the Germans and got surounded and killed.
He was killed by a group of Croatian mercenaries in the catholic army. Even today most croats are proud to have fought against those "evil protestants" and defending the catholic church.
Sweden lost its power when we lost against Russia, THey Counquered first the baltic COuntrys and later Finland too, We gained Norway later, but then Sweden werent as Aggressive as before.
To be precise, Sweden initially built its status as a superpower on french money, german mercenaries and german plunder. When they began to rely chiefly on indigenous troops,utilizing an extraordinary high military vs. total population ratio, their empire evebtually crumbled. No blame on their military skills here, their population was just to small to hold what they conquered in the long run. Fortunately.
German merceneries? No, Maybee in the 30 years war, But the reason why many Germans wanted to fight in the Swedish army in that war was because of the succesfull breitenfeldt, Were we had only etnic Swedes, Our German allies in that battle fleed. And France paid us to fight the war which we only could happily accept, And yes. We plundered our way through Germany during the 30 years war, But that was a way for us to Reward our soldiers.
GIIA landed with an army of 13,000 at usedom, of which a good deal were probably
non-swedes, considering sweden had alread recruited 15,000 german mercs prior to 1630. At Breiteneld, this army had already swollen to 23,500. Now do the math. At least 44% of the swedish army were nonswedes, and likely the percentage was significantly higher. At Lützen it had already risen to 90% and went propably even higher.
In a nutshell, sweden would't have been able to accomplish what she did, without the possibility to recruit mercs on germab soil and massive support by France. As soon she had to recruit primarly amongst their own people (see Great Northern War), ther military strenght was eventually sapped and her empire went downhill.
"Reward our soldiers."
Not just a way to get around paying them instead, but also an integral part of a loot & policy. They ought to have been awarded nuremberg trials style.
During the Great Northern War the Swedish armies accourding to historians around the world were best in Europe at that time. Fighting against Russia,Denmark,Poland,Sacshen all alone and defeated them all, Until Karl XII did the mistake to march towards Moscow.
The army Gustav II Adolf landed with consisted mainly of Swedes and people around our Country, all the provinces e.t.c. They were better trained then the merceneries since Gustav II Adolf had just reformed hes army which lead to the Success at Breitenfeldt. Thats why many Germans later stood on our side and Germans after Germans flocked to our army to join it.
But they couldn't make up their for their casualties, in particular after Poltava. In terns of able bodied men, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time they invaded norway.
"consisted mainly of Swedes"
I might be stating this for the 3rd time: My point was that the swedish was already comprised to a great proportion of non swedes even before Breitenfeld. Ethnic swedes made up for no more than 28% of the entire swedish army participating in this battle.
During the battle of Breitenfeldt your wrong, The army there consisted mainly of Etnic Swedes. You can look it up for yourself, Gustav II Adolf used hes Etnic reformed Swedish army which were much more better then the Germans in the Holy Roman empire army, The Swedes could reload their weapons three times faster then the Germans, And the reformed cavallry in our army used another tactic then the Germans, We fired a volley and smashed in to the German infantery.
That might be true if you want to build a colonial empire that spans the globe, but if your ambitions are limited to continental Europe, a huge navy is a bit extravagant :)
That said, the last Swedish victory was in a naval battle against the Russian navy, the battle of Svensksund. And that victory meant absolutely nothing.
Sweden as a country has been around for almost a 1000 years, we've done our fighting, while the USA still is a "young" country... I guess you will settle down soon enough ;)
Sweden as a country has been around for almost a 1000 years, we've done our fighting, while the USA still is a "young" country... I guess you will settle down soon enough ;)
Yeah it just blows my mind how the course of history changes countries. The U.S. went through a phase after the mess in Vietnam. Pres Carter got btch slapped by a mob who tookover our embassy. You just never know do you
Henry Kissenger's book "Diplomacy" covered some of that period. But not the history so much as it being the Treaty the formed modern day Europe. Crucial period in history. I know the French under Cardinal Richeleu, although Catholic, were supporting the Protestants because they wanted to see Germany weakened. Thus making them the top power on the continent. Which it did.
as a technical suggestion, try using a different combination of colors than red and black. The wavelengths of black contains reds wavelength so the combo doesn't provide the contrast needed. look at your slides, some even have a predominantly red background with red letters superimposed on them. It is hard to read, particularly when the time to read them is so limited. Other than that, kudos on the posting AND the subject matter, in these PC times, these stories are often concealed.
Though this battle was a Swedish victory, it left a huge amount of casualties and the Swedes got butchered at the Battle of Nordlingen. The protestants would have lost the thirty years war had catholic France not joined the side of the protestants just to thrawt the Holy Roman Empire.
But we still Threatend Holy Roman Empires Capital "Wien" at the End of the war. And Denmark got its ass kicked immiadetly in that war, When they participatd.
And if u nlook at the statistics of all wars sweden had there, We won moore battles then we lost.
you know yellow letters against yellow background is not the smartest thing to do
draz1708 1 month ago
Nicely done. thank you!
King Gustavus Adolphus was one of my childhood heroes. Sad he died thus so young.
War is bad.
Tyranny is worse!
Please be patient with America, dear friends. We suffer under the rule of rich oligarch who abuse the ideals and traditions they use to gull and fool us into unjust policy and acts. Their actions mock our history. We awaken slowly, but we awaken. We will win our liberty again!
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 3 months ago 5
@BBGSUSAMEDIA1
best wiche's in your struggle over there your great country is a
reason I hade a wounderfoul life in Sweden and donth worry we
donth take easy on friendship and deal's we make
Sorry dyslektiv Swed-Anglo-Amerikan lingvestik
tjallew 2 months ago
@tjallew Tack själv för slag märka. Den god önskan av du och mig den här lik du ger oss den styrka vi nöd till slagsmål den pressar om oligarki.
(Thank you for kind note. The good wishes of you and those like you give us the strength we need to fight the forces of the oligarchs. We need a Gustavus today!)
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 2 months ago 2
@BBGSUSAMEDIA1
What kind of ''tyranny'' do you think about? Too much of leftist ''ideas'', or too less? Liberty? There's too much ''liberty'' for n-words and muscums, not for white peoples? The same situation is everywhere! But Americans really fight against our enemies (e.g. muslims) - you want to give them whole Europe... it's your ''awakening''! :)
religiofob 1 month ago
@religiofob Greetings! In the context of the Thirty Year War, I refer to the tyranny of the Roman Church as led by the Borgia Popes and their immediate successors. Nothing more.
I view Islam as very, very tyrannical. Worse than the Roman Church of the 1600s. I exhort my Representatives in Congress to keep up to fight against Wahabism and wonder why we do not target the Muslims of Arabia. I have a daughter. Islam is the greatest threat she faces.
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 1 month ago
@BBGSUSAMEDIA1
Realities of 30 yr War have nothing in common with modern USA and its politics. I hope bad relations between catholics and protestants are the past.
Islam is racist but we shouldn't criticise islam because it's a racism... Eeeeh....
We shouldn't be proud of pur european heritage because it's a racism... Eeeeh...
America is ''big satan'' because it's rich and powerful... Eeeh...
Maybe I didn't understand your way of thinking. Greetings from Poland!
religiofob 1 month ago
@religiofob Wahabi Islam hates America because of our tolerance and because every street screams sin to their strange sensibilities.
The American State may be powerful, but the people have been made poor by the tyranny of the rich oligarchs: the 1% who hold 90% of our wealth. They now act to steal our democracy by passing laws to restrict the freedom of the vote. They fan the embers of racism to flame again.Hail to Poland! Without Jan (III) Sobieski Europe might be Muslim today! Honor to him!
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 1 month ago
@BBGSUSAMEDIA1
Part 1.
Dear Friend, it's a very naive idealism. There never will be a total equality and never was. The peoples are more rich or more poor because the ones are most creative and intelligent than others. But there never was such a wealth, liberty and humanitarity! In my opinion - too much: decadence, paranoic tolerance and vanishing of all values are the result. When muslims will be rule in Sweden (soon) you will long for bad America and its ''tyranny''.
religiofob 1 month ago
@religiofob Greetings. I am William Moran of Schenectady New York. (bbgs.usa.media1@gmail.com). We could perhaps better communicate over a different medium, and I invite you to write me. I have many screen-pals around the planet. I enjoy communicating with them all (although the Muslims don't stay long).
I express an American Idealism and it is always naive. I strive to win back the nation into which i was born. I strive to protect our world from those who would destroy it by with intolerance.
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 1 month ago
@BBGSUSAMEDIA1
Very nice to met you! :) I was sure you're Swedish... :) I have 2 questions:
1) What the ''intolerance'' is? If I object to immigration from3rd World am I intolerant? Who's a tolerant person? Someone who like black mob on the streets or rape 10 yr girls?
2) About ''socialism'', I thought of its politically correct ''way of thinking'' not real social achievements. Greetings!
PS. My english isn't very good so pardon my non-elegant style. :)
religiofob 1 month ago
@religiofob Greetings. I am pleased to be writing you. We share many values.
Tolerance assumes a rule of law. I, too, object to law-breaking, illegal immigrants. I object to mob-violence and crimes against people and property.
Wahabi Islam (The Saudi Kingdom, Pakistan, others) is intolerant of all other religions. Live and let live I say about others faiths, but not about them. As they would destroy our culture, I would destroy theirs. I fell the same about Iran, but their youth are not so bad.
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 1 month ago
@BBGSUSAMEDIA1
Part 2.
PS. Gustavus Adolphus II was a great king! I interested in history, I read Peter Englund's books and I was wonder one sentence of polish pre-word: ''Peter Englund returned Swedish history to Swedish peoples''. Really, the history is complete not important in Sweden? Are the Swedish the NATION yet? It is say you are ''a model socialist society''. A true socialist can't love her/his homeland... :)
religiofob 1 month ago
@religiofob I believe the comment to which you refer about Englund means that for the first time in 100 years Sweden can claim an author of global stature who writes in their native language. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a higher than average measure of socialism. (Oddly enough, the first socialist reforms were instituted by kings, not democracies). Many elements of socialism no one objects to: public schools, roads, electrical delivery systems, airports... more. None self supported.
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 1 month ago
@religiofob After that we have the tyranny of the rich over the non-rich.
We have the tyranny of racism (Islam is racist)
These are complex matters. We must judge with deliberation and not be quick to accuse. but when the truth becomes apparent beyond doubt act accordingly.
America is still peopled by Europeans and has a culture descended from European cultures..
BBGSUSAMEDIA1 1 month ago
fan denna va ju spännande
sykodiiizer 4 months ago
@sykodiiizer hur många dagar tog den där kriget ?
sirwann 3 months ago
To speak of germans in regard of the 30year war is kind of misleading. There were saxons, bohemians, brandenburg-prussians. Germany wasnt a state or united realm and everyone fought each other during various conflicts. And this battle was not a decisive battle nor was it the biggest battle in the Thirty Years' War. It was the death of the swedish king that made this battle remarkable. Nothing else.
possumGFX 5 months ago
I really wonder what has happened to the Swedes: Once they did struggle with Poland and Russia for dominance in the Baltic Sea region and even challenged House Habsburg in its possession of the German imperial crown, under the great King Gustavus Adolphus! But today they do help the US of A and their NATO lackeys to bully tiny Libya. How did it come to this? The Swedes stayed neutral ever since the Napoleonic Wars, so I wonder why they have joined with the US of A now.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 7 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar the people doesn' want this, our idiotic goverment is masterminds behind our now american lifestyle
BombBakers 4 months ago
@BombBakers But in this troublous time what's to be done? Shall we go throw away our coats of steel, and wrap our bodies in black mourning gowns, numbering our Ave-Maries with our beads? Or shall we on the helmets of our foes tell our devotion with revengeful arms? If for the last, say ay, and to it, lords.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 4 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar
west Europ incompeten's handling Herr Hitler and Stalin, Sweden need badly a friendly nation
demokratik a big bonus so they send there Crown Prince +big delegation to Whashington
Oficely a diplomatik deal throw German wolf pack and minefield they made a deal that stay's Russia know it from day one? Us hade Air bases south Sweden 1944 Swed info all the time now we are in the third ww
against terrorism allied ex dearest enemy Russia sorry dyslektiv Swed-Anglo-Amerikan
tjallew 2 months ago
@tjallew: Only the infamous English total submission in 1941 to the foul Americans is more disgraceful than the Swedish subjection you described all too well; under their Charles XII the Swedes attempted to defeat Russia alone and now have submitted without a fight to the Americans; this made their former glories base and sovereignty a slave, proud majesty a subject, state a peasant!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 2 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar
you absolutly right but it happen's to imperier dreamer my dear Voltaire would
explain it better.
After Poltava all GrandPower quality was in the hand off Russia.
And now we talking about the northern hemisfer.
The winner alway's take it all.
But not only the glory alsow the responsebility.
According Soltchenitchin maybee Sweden bye standing beside Europ
conflikt's and letting Russia pay the price being on the top was not that bad.
tjallew 2 months ago
@tjallew: But you are aware that ere Bismarck there was no united Germany since the downfall of House Staufer, as House Habsburg held the German crown only in name, while the German principalities were in fact independent; so no excuses with a combined German and Polish power (and Prince Eugene, who spoiled the French hegemony dreams of Louis XIV, was not even involved); but that is not the question here: Charles XII fought and was defeated, later Sweden submitted without a fight!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 2 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar
okay Sweden the country where all roads end's is juridicly based on one thing
Soldier's say to the King -Erinran- old tradition from Nohas grandson the first
Swedich King so geographikly Sweden is where the King is.
Remember when King Gustav The Great was with army at prime in
Munchen 1 of 14 was bourned in Sweden, Finland ore Baltik provincis
the rest from the world as we know it but they was Swedich after there say
to the KIng very simple and safe thing toi do
tjallew 2 months ago
@tjallew: But what has this excursus about the glorious history of old Sweden to do with the shame and disgrace of the current Sweden I spoke of initially?
FireEyedMaidOfWar 2 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar
Sweden has nothing to bee a shamed fore today yesterday ore tommorow
ore let Tim Rice put my Swed-Anglo-Amerikan Lingvestik reflektion off
Björn's lyrik-Let man's petination terring them self appart my land's only
border ligh's a round my heart.
Do you now many smal nation in the world with 5-10 million ctizen's
That hade Winning Sommer Olympik 2 time's totaly DC viktory against US 2 time's in final 5-0 Tabel-Tennis against China 2 time's in final 5-0
SWEDEN
tjallew 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjallew: Well, if the once warlike Swedes do not consider it shameful to be vassals of the timid Americans, I cannot help them to see their shame but it will be marked in history, as historians tend to make such sideline remarks about the bewildering changes in the course of history.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 2 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar
Sorry Russia was not Sweden's biggest enemy in the beginning
Great Nordik War's it was combined German-Polich forces donth
forgett Hetman Sobiesky with Crown Polich Army decade earlier
Destroing Osmanien last hard atack on central Europa
it was toataly all Europ against King Karl most dangeras to Sweden was
sea-power England+Holland wenth on Russian and Danich side
Ironik it's Tzar Peter the Great that save south provinces to Sweden Crown
after the King's death
tjallew 2 months ago
there was much finnish soldier
there was finnish cavalry
TheTrivall 9 months ago
Gustav II Adolf was a great general and military leader. It was a huge loss when he fell at Lützen.
rdv064 10 months ago
The "Emperor" cried and the "Holy Father" raged at the peace treaty. Thanks Gustavus Adolphus for emancipating the Free World!
RandallJonesey 1 year ago
Gustavus Adolphus secured the fate of Protestanism.
Certain men win battles in this world.
Some men perhaps do not belong to this world.
scholion 1 year ago
No wonder we Gustav II Adolf where killed whene we had germans and scotts in our army, what happend to normal finns and estonien and simpell sweeds:(
Norrahammarbyhamnen 2 years ago
There were an majority of Swedes at Breitenfeldt, And more Swedes in the army then Scotts throughout the war. But After the Battle of Breitenfeldt Germans became the majority.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Scots were at Brietenfield. not so many at Lutzen.. thats why he got killed..
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
@paddyalcorn Fucking racist
absolutely71 1 year ago
The music... I liked the music. Who is the singer?
Superztygg 2 years ago
This guy is a hero for many german protestants aswell
Sweden80Here 2 years ago
Not much time passed until the catholic league adopted the Swedish tactics though, what made the Swedes to win over and over again even though the tactics were to become more widespread was solely due to the Swedish commanders (Banér, Torstensson etc) They were simply the greatest, they were witty, fast and inventing.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
"shut up" "stop talking shit"
A way of admitting lack of arguments.
"Wallenstein"
I don't see how this makes the swedish atrocities any better.
"humanist"
*rofl*
"innocent jews"
If naught helps, WWII will? You're were able to face what they've done. They don't glorify nor trivialize this,apologized etc.
With the swedes things are quite the contrary. Total inability to accept anything which condradict s their self image.
Thespides 2 years ago
i am beyond all hope? For saying the right things?
Well.. Then you are beyond all hope.
btw, Did your ancestors get raped and murdered by my ancestors or something?
joonte1010 2 years ago
No, for stating claims without backing them up while ignoring sources provided by others. For requiring ME to refute mine own position while corfirming yours by "reading it up" (not even bothering to name any literature). Something which is definitely your job.
"your ancestors "
Hardly, there were so few of you over here.
Btw,you're demonstrating that you're also a troll.
Thespides 2 years ago
Btw,
copy/paste these strings o charakter into google:
"Von einer nationalen zu einer paneuropäischen Streitmacht"
"ericson"
Take the first hit. Squeeze it through the babelfish translator. And there you are. As I said, you're free to back your claims up (Newsflash: Insisting you're right, ans telling me to shut up is no valid proof.) . Until then I'll consider your point mood. Just as coolthings ranting.
Thespides 2 years ago
Correction: Until then I'll consider your point mooT.
Thespides 2 years ago
Another Moose horny German or what?
joonte1010 2 years ago
You can try to read any information about the battle of Breitenfeldt, And not just that one you have read which i never have heard about. Try to search for information about that battle.
I am right, Your not. The Swedes were much better fighters then the Germans, The Swedes at that era were considered among many historians today to have been the best trained soldiers at that era. Just like in the Great Northern War and the Caroleans.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Gustav II Adolfs revolutionary formations sertainly made his army the most modern and whit it most competent. But the dutch should be credited for fielding the best trained and diciplined troops at this era.
As for the Great Nordic war, countrys sutch as Great Brittan, France and Perussia fielded equal, if not better troops then the swedes. The caroline infantry made its succes whit high offensive moral and dicipline.
tyskbulle 2 years ago
Your wrong, I`ll rather stick with the Historians and their claims. Historians all around Europe claims that the Swedes could put up the best armies in the 17th Century and the early 18th Century (Caroleans).
joonte1010 2 years ago
This is where you are wrong. In the 17th century, the dutch laid the foundations of Gustav II Adolfs formation reforms. In 18th century its is a possability that sweden had the best trained armie from 1700-1709. Sense the most experienced troops where lost at Poltava, after 1721 the Carolean infantry lackt experiance and quality equiptment. By the seven year war the swedish troops put up a good fight but they where behind in development and specialy in equiptment.
tyskbulle 2 years ago
The true tribiute should go to Swedens warrior kings and its generals, they fiound the tactics that where so succesfull. No doubt about that the Swedish infantry at this time where among the best, but other nation had "least" equal troops. It easy to say Sweden had the best troops in the beginning of the 18th century but looking at training and equiptment, nations like Perussian infantry where equal only they didnt have the chance to prove themself at this time.
tyskbulle 2 years ago
Wasn´t the caroleans tactic a counter against the tactics and training most armies in Europe used, and that includes Preussia, France and Great Britain. I have to agree with joonte1010 in this point ,even if he is an overzealous patriot, that most historians have given credits to the carolean army as Europes most effective army at this time. As Russia laid siege on Narva in 1700, the Caroleans manage form an army in less than two weaks, deafeat Denmark and reach Narva in three months.
onlypeaceindeath 2 years ago
well the caroleans infantry wasnt a proffesional army, it was farmers that where given a pice of land in return to army service, indeed they where drilled very well, mutch like a proffesional army but they still lackt time in training as proffesional armys had. They where drilled in one tactic and it was a volly then a steal charge, they didnt own the all around training and fire doctrine as the other europeans super powers had, but they got alot of experiance in the long campaigns.
tyskbulle 2 years ago
Yes, i remember that they were ordinary conscripts and that they were offered some land and a small house for there services. But for what i understand they were thoroughly trained and drilled in combination with their hard farmer lives to withstand the pressure they had to endure on the battlefield. I have also read that when the caroleans were not at war, they had to undergo yearly drills and training to keep the army in shape in case of war.
onlypeaceindeath 2 years ago
Its all true, but i still question if they where more trained then proffessional armys of the UK, Prussia or France, they had after all extremly well trained and diciplined troops, but we never know. The Carolean tactics perhaps woudnt work so well against opponents that coud withstand more punishment then the weak drilled russian-polish lines. The saxon and danish armies charles faced where still not close to proffessional but they where more modern. Its safe to say perhaps we never know.
tyskbulle 2 years ago
I fully agree with you, it's impossible to say accurately how the caroleans really were.
onlypeaceindeath 2 years ago
The Saxon armies were considered to have been of a very very high qualtiy, And they got defeated quite easily thanx to the aggressive tactic Charles used.
joonte1010 2 years ago
I have to agree with you about the dutch training and discipline though. They where used often as mercenaries during the entire 17th century. And people that knows the history about Gustavus Adolphus also knows that he used the tactics that Maurice of Nassau used during the Dutch Revolution as a template for his army reform.
onlypeaceindeath 2 years ago
Thats just bullshit, The Swedish during the early 18th Century were better soldiers then the French,Prussians and English.I think the battles proves that, We were allways fighting against bigger armies and won constantly until Poltava. The prussians,English or French never had any victories like Narva or Fraustadt,holowschyn. And the reason for their great succes was because of their offensive tactics,Fire one volley 30 meters from the enemies before they draw their swords and fought man to man.
joonte1010 2 years ago
I reckon you're talking to someone else, but, yes the Carolean army was probably the best drilled soldiers of the 18th century, they were disciplined, 'fearless' and hard. The psychological warfare the Carolean tactic used did indeed make the name "The Daemons from the north" very fitting. Though what we have to take into account is that the Swedish army never fought a western power and we can never know for sure, historians however agrees on their excellence.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
They fought the Saxons which were considered to be a very good Western European Army.
The battle of Fraustadt.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Saxony wasn't France nor England. But yes if we look at that we could get some smaller indications. Eh heck let's just agree, the Caroleans were an awesome force.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Yes but i agree on your statements, It doesnt work to compare the Caroleans with the French,English or Prussians since they never fought eachother. But if you look at their tactics in warfare i think the Caroleans would have had an advance with their offensive tactic since the other European countrys mostly only used their weapons and manouvers?
joonte1010 2 years ago
The English,Prussian and French used a tactic which mainly consisted by using their rifle and manouvering their enemies, It wasnt as aggressive and offensive as the Swedish model. If you would have put a English or Prussian army instead of a Swedish Carolean the war would have ended much quicker with a defeat, Maybe as early as in the battle of Narva.
joonte1010 2 years ago
And claiming that the Dutch fielded the best troops in that era is also rubbish, Since they werent close to the quality the Swedish army later had during the 30 years war. Gustav II Adolf took some idèas from the dutch thats true, But he made a lot of changes in them and created new things. The Swedish infantery in that era were and is considered to have been the best. Reloading and open fire with their rifles three times faster then their enemies.
joonte1010 2 years ago
I don't know if you care, but there's a big difference between a rifle and a musket. And i do believe they did use muskets...
Agrikultur 2 years ago
The Swedish conscripts of the thirty years war was not as experienced as the German mercenaries, they were however loyal to the crown, the Swedish troops were more often set as garrison rather then to be used on the battlefield (though they were that too), The point is that it was the Swedish tacticians and tactics the won the war not the conscripts - even though old German wardogs of course was preferred - Nationality played little roll, experience was sought for, Swedish or German the same-
k1lkenny 2 years ago
The Swedes were better trained then the German merceneries, And often used on the most dangerous places on the battlefield (Center). The Germans hadnt gone through the same training as the Swedes which made them lesser valuable for the Swedish King. Thats why he often placed Swedish regiments in forts and towns to use later on.
joonte1010 2 years ago
I usually agree with you Jonte but this time I can't, Swedish troops were stationed as garrison cause they were loyal but less experienced - they just came from home - than the old German mercenaries - A mercenary could give up for money, nothing national troops really would do - , Swedish veterans was however just as good as any other experienced troop from other nationalities, they were all trained in the Swedish manner, where the soldier came from was of lesser importance.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
well no, Gustav II Adolf made hes reform in Sweden with the etnic Swedish soldiers. You can take a look at the battle of Breitenfeldt. The Swedes relloaded and fired their weapons three times faster then the German troops on the catholic Side. And used another better formation when going into battle, Smaller formations instead of the Tercio Formations the German soldiers and merceneries used.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Absolutely, but any future German mercenary could be thought this as well - And they were -. Swedish national troops were of lesser relevance later into the war, Experienced troops which had fought the war for a decade were way more sought for, they knew the war. Don't make this an ethnicity question. It's simply Swedish tactical brilliance which won the war for Sweden (Gustav, Banér, Torstensson)
k1lkenny 2 years ago
It took a long time, And that doesnt change the fact that the Swedish soldiers actually were better soldiers at that time during that war thanx to the reform which the battle of Breitenfeldt prooves, The first battle between the Swedes and the Catholics. Sweden also had their two Elit regiments in many battles, The old blue regiments e.t.c. But they were allmost completely wiped out during the battle of Lützen. But its true that the Swedish army later on allmost mainly had Germans.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Mainly Germans indeed, but hey what, We still won, It's cause these foreign troops were drilled in Swedish manner. In the beginning considering the Swedish force mainly consisted of Swedes and they were following this new style of fighting they automatically became the best - Since no one else was fighting in this new way -, but as I stated when you have the tools the Germans was to also become the best
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Sorry joonte, i am sure this will annoy you but... I have to agree with k1lkenny. Nationality wasn't the important issue. Tactics, leadership and gold were. Anyway, the first Swedish interventions in the 30 years war was at Stralsund and Frankfurt where a large part of the "Swedish" infantry were Scottish mercenaries. Indeed, most of the Infantry at Breitenfield 1 were Scottish or German.
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
Bullshit, The army at breitenfeldt were allmost mainly Swedish, The battle were the first major battle Sweden fought in that war. The army were fresh and directly from Sweden, After the victory Germans started to join the Swedish army.
joonte1010 2 years ago
The Krieksarchive in Stockholm says different.
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
You can ask the maker of this video, He study Swedish history and knows about this. The battle of breitenfeldt consisted of mainly Swedes, Since their Saxon allies fleed in the beginning of the battle.
joonte1010 2 years ago
No thats OK. I am sure he is well read. I am only trying to point out that it is a matter of record that Gustavus recruited foreigners well before Breitenfield. Many of the Scottish were paid in Land and Titles. Check the Swedish Aristocracy.
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
You make it sound like we had an army of damn scotts in our army, Which is completely wrong, The army at the beginning were mainly Swedish, While the Germans became a majority in the Swedish army. And land and titles were only given on conquered areas and not in mainland Sweden since it was mostly given to etnic Swedes.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Yes you did have Scots in the Swedish army. Thousands of them. All the way back to Charles IX. Read up on Jakob Vilhelmsson Spens (Friher Orreholm) who did most of the UK recruiting for Gustavus since 1611. Then get back to me.
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
we had more Germans in the Swedish army then Scots.
joonte1010 2 years ago
I completely agree. Germans were the majority of the "Swedish" army at Breitenfeld. Again, thats why the nobility of Sweden includes names like von Königsmarck, von Thurn, von Rosen etc. All of them at the battle. All of them given Swedish Titles. Most of the first 100 or so names in the riddarhuset fought for Gustavus. But you are right, Scots were in the minority. Only Lillie, Douglas, Spens, Hamilton and Sinclair. De la Gardie was French by the way...
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
Are you a fucking retard or something? You ignorant highland sheep, The Swedes were in majority in the battle of Breitenfeldt, While The Germans became majority further in to the war.
because of the Swedish victory at Breitenfeldt more Germans came and volountered in the army. Are you brain made out of Tea or something? This is starting to get really ennoying.
joonte1010 2 years ago
Well son, if you are going to just resort to denial and abuse without any reference to further sources then i reckon you need to research your history a bit more. Can you at least give me some idea of where you get your numbers from? Unit titles? Commanders? Anything?
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
First of all you can look at a list over the regiments who fought in the battle of breitenfeldt, And you will quickly realize that there were no Merceneries there. Mainly Swedish. And stop your damn Scot bullshit, We had German merceneries and many of them in the 30 years war, Yes. But not many of Scots.
joonte1010 2 years ago
I am bored with trying to teach you your own history. Please look up Green Brigade in Gustavus Army. Try wikipedia at least. Or just stay in denial. Good night.
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
Hello! I'm suprised to be taught in history from a comment on youtube but after looking up what you claimed to be the Green regiment I found information about it and one of it's leaders (the leader during Lützen) Thank you! And as a comment Sweden only brought 8-12 thousand swedes to Germany to begin with, the rest of the army consisted of drafted mercenaries.
Alfons92 2 years ago
@Alfons92 new numbers are more likly say: 6000 swedish and the rest were german and scottish mercenaries ;)
xXxLYnXxXx 1 year ago
@xXxLYnXxXx wow really please give me a link to that source :>
Wrangelful 11 months ago
@Wrangelful hhmmm ... let me think ... i guess i take this info from the book: Battles of the Thirty years war - From white mountain to Nordlingen 1618-1635 / By William P. Guthrie ;)
xXxLYnXxXx 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXxLYnXxXx Thank you will check it out : )
Wrangelful 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXxLYnXxXx Well I will check it out! :P
Wrangelful 11 months ago
@Alfons92 drafted mercenaries? Drafted? Isnt that opositive of a mercenary?
ImperialGuard9001 1 year ago
The Germans were the majority at Breitenfeldt, the Swedes were second-most, the Scots were not that numerous.
Also, this was very common at the time as you surely know, 200 years later at Waterloo about something like 16% of the British army was actually british, the rest were dutch/belgian troops.
Fyllesjuk 2 years ago
At Brietenfield the Scots infantry were higher in numbers than the Swedish troops. But had a high percentage of Scots in the "Swedish" officer ranks. Which possibly explains the victory. But I agree at Waterloo, the British army had Dutch and Belgians in the coalition. And many Germans too. (Hanover, Brunswick, Nassau etc.) And probably depended on the Prussians arrival to win.
paddyalcorn 2 years ago
Actually not, counting both infantry and cavalry the Swedes outnumbered the scots by about twice as many, however, many regiments that were commanded by scots were not actually scottish but 100% German, which may be confusing.
Fyllesjuk 2 years ago
@paddyalcorn That being said you truly lack an histocrical vein if you by a few samples draw a full conclusion. In logic it's a grave mistake to make up your mind or your opinion from a few silly facts. But lets be fair I do see how yoyur mind works: (IQ 75-) Uhhh yeah swedes haven't been in a war for 200 years...uuuuhh the be bad yeasss...ooohh yeah me smart nah *drool*. Like I said I dislike nationalism but You sir is a racist. Now run home to Momma if she's still alive.
absolutely71 1 year ago
@absolutely71 yeah im aware of my typos fuck-brain
absolutely71 1 year ago
Its nothing to argue about, THe battle of Breitenfeldt consisted of mainly Swedes, Thats why we won that battle. The etnic Swedes were much better trained then the Germans, We reloaded and fired our weapons three times faster then the Germans. Thats a Fact. If you cant deal with it? Then to bad for you.
joonte1010 2 years ago
The army at breitenfeldt were mainly Swedish, Thats the reason for the big sucess at the battle, The Swedes were better trained then the Germans and could reload and fire their weapons three times faster then the Germans in the Holy Roman Empire.
joonte1010 2 years ago
This campaign wasn't about rescueing saxony, but rather about preventing it from joining the imperial side.
The elector did not wish the imperialist to ravage his country, that's why he allied himself with the swedes. He had, however, no desire to help the swedish king to annex northern germany and turn the rest into satellites either.
Anyway, courtesy demands that only good things be said about deceased people. And so I state that it was a good thing that Gustav II Adolf died there.
Miriquidi 2 years ago
roman-catholich supplication !
"A horribile Haccapaelitorum agmine libera nos, Domine".
("O Lord, deliver us from the terrible army of the Haccapelites)
raippaluoto 2 years ago
The 30 Years war devastaded Germany and cut the population to half of what it had been before. Churches around my home still have the remains of thousands (skulls and bones) of citizens that starved or were killed in action then. Childen`s skulls and bones too. Citizens and farmers of all contributing countries had to pay the price. The 30 years war is still in the collective memory of the german people. Just google "30 years war" and "Magdeburg".
reverendbecker 2 years ago
and then France blows up germany and Ferdinand II dies leaving the throne to Ferdinand III.
Beachhead22 3 years ago
roman-catholich supplication !
"A horribile Haccapaelitorum agmine libera nos, Domine".
("O Lord, deliver us from the terrible army of the Haccapelites)
raippaluoto 3 years ago
They would actually have lost without that regiment going over there, their lines would have been crubled into dust without that...
ArabiApina 3 years ago
No they wouldnt, he saw that the Regiment was starting to go back in the battle, and he took command over it and put it in to battle again, the main battle was in the Center.
If u loose the Center u loose the whole battle, But the Swedish regiment Old Blue did it good.
joonte1010 3 years ago
joonte1010, Vi var och är svenskar (+ starka finnar i första led)!
StaffanGoldschmidt 3 years ago
Nej det var inga Finnar i första led, Infanteriet bestod i största del av Svenskar, och i Centern hade man alltid Svenskt infanteri, Där striderna skulle var som hårdast. För att Svenskarna var att lita på, Dom flydde inte så lätt. Dom stod kvar och kämpade.
joonte1010 3 years ago
@ joonte1010:
Du borde läsa Peter Englunds "Ofredsår".
valois5 3 years ago
Har den hemma, Har läst den.
joonte1010 3 years ago
Is Religion really worth destroying a country?
lilbrothaaa 3 years ago
jag håller med dej sulimaaren det finns så många krigsfilmer om usa:s krig men nästan inga om sveriges fastän sveriges krig skulle vart mycket bättre. sveriges historia innehåller så mycket som man vill veta mer om det är därför sånna här filmer är så bra
jonnorin 3 years ago
Fin video! Suck, vi får väl aldrig se en riktigt fet svensk film om stormakstiden...om ändå historia kunde bli lite mer "inne"...Det finns så himla mycket att filma!
Sulimaaren 3 years ago 4
Håller med dig Sulimaaren men nu har vi åtminstone Arn och det det kanske kan få film bolagen att öppna ögonen för svensk historia... Jag menar kolla patrioten amerikansk film om deras historia... Kolla zulu eller 300 Engelsk grekisk o Afrikansk historia varför kan inte Sverige göra film om sin historia?
Ramsan86 3 years ago 3
antagligen för att svenskarna är helt avpatriotiserade efter lång tid av vänsterpropaganda. Dessutom är historieintresset i sverige fortfarande väldigt svagt.
Sulimaaren 3 years ago 3
+ att det kostar jävligt mycket pengar, om man ska göra en seriös filmatisering av den svenska stormaktstiden.
Karlaker 3 years ago
ja men man bör ändå satsa på en Svensk Film om Sveriges stormakts tid istället för alla dessa löjliga Polis och Deckar filmer som ständigt kommer ut.
joonte1010 3 years ago
@Sulimaaren
Märkligt - är både patriot, vänster och historieintresserad. Tycker också det är synd att svenskarna skall vara så självhatande hela tiden, och de som inte är det brukar oftast tillhöra den bruna rörelsen. Tycker också det är synd att så få är intresserade av historia i allmänhet. Tycker snarare att liberalismen bör kritiseras för det här än vänstern.
NordicSocialist 1 year ago
The main battles in which the Hakkapeliitta took part during the Thirty Years' War were:
Breitenfeld in 1631
Lech in 1632
Lützen in 1632
Nördlingen in 1634
Leipzig in 1642 (also known as the Second Battle of Breitenfeld or the First Battle of Leipzig)
Jankau in 1645
Lens in 1648
raippaluoto 3 years ago
History is mindblowing. It's a shame that it is so often presented to us in such a dull lifeless manner. I mean WOW, the Sweedish were fighters back then!? Was this what turned them into a land of castrated men.
MickBelcker 3 years ago
Swedes have been Fighters from the Viking age to 1809 when we lost Finland to Russia..
Sweden have also been a Great power in Europe which is a realy amazing achivemet! If u look how small our Country is.
joonte1010 3 years ago
Sweden as a country, has been around for almost a 1000 years, we've done our fighting, while USA is still a "young" country... But I guess you guys will settle down soon enough
Karlaker 3 years ago
Why are u writting that to me? i am a Swede.
joonte1010 3 years ago
Yeh, Sweden lost its power with Finland :P
Well, greetings from Finland, great video. Swedens king had to lead that cavalry charge or they would have lost the whole battle.
ArabiApina 3 years ago
haha no no, he only lead an Regiment in to battle again. Nothing which would change the outcome of the whole battle if he didnt, He was a Warrior king, he lead hes men in to battle.
sadly, hes horse was to fast and he end up right among the Germans and got surounded and killed.
joonte1010 3 years ago
He was killed by a group of Croatian mercenaries in the catholic army. Even today most croats are proud to have fought against those "evil protestants" and defending the catholic church.
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 3 years ago
he got lost from hes regiment when he lead it to fight in the Dust. And stod right among the Germans or Croatians. Thats how he got himself killed.
he had probably done hes work among the livings and good wanted him in heaven next to him.
joonte1010 3 years ago
Sweden lost its power when we lost against Russia, THey Counquered first the baltic COuntrys and later Finland too, We gained Norway later, but then Sweden werent as Aggressive as before.
joonte1010 3 years ago
To be precise, Sweden initially built its status as a superpower on french money, german mercenaries and german plunder. When they began to rely chiefly on indigenous troops,utilizing an extraordinary high military vs. total population ratio, their empire evebtually crumbled. No blame on their military skills here, their population was just to small to hold what they conquered in the long run. Fortunately.
Miriquidi 2 years ago
German merceneries? No, Maybee in the 30 years war, But the reason why many Germans wanted to fight in the Swedish army in that war was because of the succesfull breitenfeldt, Were we had only etnic Swedes, Our German allies in that battle fleed. And France paid us to fight the war which we only could happily accept, And yes. We plundered our way through Germany during the 30 years war, But that was a way for us to Reward our soldiers.
joonte1010 2 years ago
GIIA landed with an army of 13,000 at usedom, of which a good deal were probably
non-swedes, considering sweden had alread recruited 15,000 german mercs prior to 1630. At Breiteneld, this army had already swollen to 23,500. Now do the math. At least 44% of the swedish army were nonswedes, and likely the percentage was significantly higher. At Lützen it had already risen to 90% and went propably even higher.
Miriquidi 2 years ago
In a nutshell, sweden would't have been able to accomplish what she did, without the possibility to recruit mercs on germab soil and massive support by France. As soon she had to recruit primarly amongst their own people (see Great Northern War), ther military strenght was eventually sapped and her empire went downhill.
"Reward our soldiers."
Not just a way to get around paying them instead, but also an integral part of a loot & policy. They ought to have been awarded nuremberg trials style.
Miriquidi 2 years ago
During the Great Northern War the Swedish armies accourding to historians around the world were best in Europe at that time. Fighting against Russia,Denmark,Poland,Sacshen all alone and defeated them all, Until Karl XII did the mistake to march towards Moscow.
joonte1010 2 years ago
The army Gustav II Adolf landed with consisted mainly of Swedes and people around our Country, all the provinces e.t.c. They were better trained then the merceneries since Gustav II Adolf had just reformed hes army which lead to the Success at Breitenfeldt. Thats why many Germans later stood on our side and Germans after Germans flocked to our army to join it.
joonte1010 2 years ago
"defeated them all"
But they couldn't make up their for their casualties, in particular after Poltava. In terns of able bodied men, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time they invaded norway.
"consisted mainly of Swedes"
I might be stating this for the 3rd time: My point was that the swedish was already comprised to a great proportion of non swedes even before Breitenfeld. Ethnic swedes made up for no more than 28% of the entire swedish army participating in this battle.
Miriquidi 2 years ago
During the battle of Breitenfeldt your wrong, The army there consisted mainly of Etnic Swedes. You can look it up for yourself, Gustav II Adolf used hes Etnic reformed Swedish army which were much more better then the Germans in the Holy Roman empire army, The Swedes could reload their weapons three times faster then the Germans, And the reformed cavallry in our army used another tactic then the Germans, We fired a volley and smashed in to the German infantery.
joonte1010 2 years ago
the swedes almost became a global power
klined 3 years ago
that's an extreme exaggeration
without a great navy they could never hope to compete with the major powers
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 3 years ago
That might be true if you want to build a colonial empire that spans the globe, but if your ambitions are limited to continental Europe, a huge navy is a bit extravagant :)
That said, the last Swedish victory was in a naval battle against the Russian navy, the battle of Svensksund. And that victory meant absolutely nothing.
valois5 3 years ago
I'm positive that USSR wasn't too concerned about the size of the german navy after June 22nd, 1941. :)
And it was not the size of the German navy that made Nazi Germany dangerous (you Brits might differ, but then I guess you would ^^).
valois5 3 years ago
Fuck you too
VulcanBobber 3 years ago
Sweden as a country has been around for almost a 1000 years, we've done our fighting, while the USA still is a "young" country... I guess you will settle down soon enough ;)
Karlaker 3 years ago
Sweden as a country has been around for almost a 1000 years, we've done our fighting, while the USA still is a "young" country... I guess you will settle down soon enough ;)
Karlaker 3 years ago
Yeah it just blows my mind how the course of history changes countries. The U.S. went through a phase after the mess in Vietnam. Pres Carter got btch slapped by a mob who tookover our embassy. You just never know do you
MickBelcker 3 years ago
anyone know of any good books ont he thirty years war and the peace of westphalia?
ent257 3 years ago
Henry Kissenger's book "Diplomacy" covered some of that period. But not the history so much as it being the Treaty the formed modern day Europe. Crucial period in history. I know the French under Cardinal Richeleu, although Catholic, were supporting the Protestants because they wanted to see Germany weakened. Thus making them the top power on the continent. Which it did.
MickBelcker 3 years ago
as a technical suggestion, try using a different combination of colors than red and black. The wavelengths of black contains reds wavelength so the combo doesn't provide the contrast needed. look at your slides, some even have a predominantly red background with red letters superimposed on them. It is hard to read, particularly when the time to read them is so limited. Other than that, kudos on the posting AND the subject matter, in these PC times, these stories are often concealed.
TubeFreakd 3 years ago
thanks fer postin!
acerb45666555 3 years ago
Allrigt thank you
kroshkamaster 3 years ago
Oh by the way..I love ur vid about the battle.Very informative and of course 5stars for it.
kroshkamaster 3 years ago
Does shrappnel exists at the thirty years war?That`s prety cool.
kroshkamaster 3 years ago
At 3:13.Pappenheim gets wounded by a small calibre cannonball??I think that must be a very small calibre like a musket or not??
kroshkamaster 3 years ago
I am technically an American citizen, American born and raised. I would be interested in your takes on the causes of the War.
kesmith32 3 years ago
The same reason as in every war since thee intelligent monkeys kicked us from the tree :
Territory Gold Woman Power and Possibility
Phygos2008 3 years ago
you forgot religion :p
coolthing100 3 years ago
here is from the doctor that examined his body:
Pappenheims chest was widely open by,what seems to be a smallcaliber cannonball.
His Arms and face was injured by Shrappnel of some kind,because he had metal fragments inpierced into his facal skin.
There was no way saving his life
He died of extrem blodloss Some hours after the battle.
coolthing100 3 years ago
Its about time they made a movie about this battle..it could be awesome and a big success in germany too.
WinkelHoof 4 years ago 3
Fan svenskarna hade hår på bröstet, ställer sig i slagfältet och sjunger små grodorna för att folk ska lugna sig :P Bäst :D
SwedishNorse 4 years ago
Fan svenskarna hade hår på bröstet, ställer sig i slagfältet och sjunger små grodorna för att folk ska lugna sig :P Bäst :D
SwedishNorse 4 years ago
Fan svenskarna hade hår på bröstet, ställer sig i slagfältet och sjunger små grodorna för att folk ska lugna sig :P Bäst :D
SwedishNorse 4 years ago
Though this battle was a Swedish victory, it left a huge amount of casualties and the Swedes got butchered at the Battle of Nordlingen. The protestants would have lost the thirty years war had catholic France not joined the side of the protestants just to thrawt the Holy Roman Empire.
RogueZealot10 4 years ago
But we still Threatend Holy Roman Empires Capital "Wien" at the End of the war. And Denmark got its ass kicked immiadetly in that war, When they participatd.
And if u nlook at the statistics of all wars sweden had there, We won moore battles then we lost.
joonte1010 4 years ago
no i disagree but i dont wan't to fight you
coolthing100 4 years ago