Discussion in 'Nordic Countries Discussion' started by Tod, Feb 11, 2002.
I've got a bad feeling about this
Hey, It's me... I've got it all figured out... What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah! Not only is Maladour back, Darth_Badboll is here as well! With him (it?) around, nothing can go wrong.
I'm on it.
I would prefer if we instead when we have conquered/become conquered proclaim the independent state of Dalarna, make revolution and now Finland, Sweden and Norway all belongs to Dalarna. After that we can invade Denmark, people from Dalarna have been quite good at defeating Danes throughout history!
Why in the world would we want danmark?
Quiet Queen: I didn't omit Gustavus III or Charles XII, I deliberately didn't metion them. Nobody who has ever studied military history can call them brilliant military leaders. Gustavus III started war badly prepared which would've ended disastrously if Cronstedt hadn't defeated russian navy.
Charles XII achieved only one remarkable victory in Narva and that was only good luck. Sure he got few minor victories in Poland but his second attack against russians showed clearly his faults as military commander. He might have been competant tactician but he wasn't any good as strategist.
And do remember that wars do not make one great.
TodIf you dismiss military victories as ?only good luck?, then you can prove whatever you wish. It is not a valid argument.
All military victories consists of many aspects ? planning, equipment, information, leadership, luck, to mention but a few. The talented commander uses all assets skilfully, and will wrest a victory out of them. Nothing is ever won by sheer luck.
If we speak of Charles XII, we should keep in mind that he is the only commander ever to have conquered and held Moscow. No mean feat, something I?m sure Napoleon and Hitler would agree with.
He fought a series of wars foisted off on him, not for some larger strategic goal. This fact is clearly reflected in his campaigns. He was a true warrior, which he certainly should be honoured for!
Gustavus III did come less than ideally prepared to his Russian war, something that had political reasons. The parliament fought any plan of war that had any whiff of being aimed against the powerful Russian Empire, and the king was forced to disguise his campaign-plans as aimed against Norway!
He did not get the chance of following through his Russian campaign either, being forced to return to the capital to defend the war, where he was subsequently assassinated. You should not judge Gustavus III hastily.
I note you say nothing of Charles XIV Gustavus?
You claim that wars do not make one great? Have you told Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Macedon, Rome, Germany, Britain, or the or the US? I?m sure they?d be quite amazed to hear it?
I've said this before but I'll say it again.
I think Sweden should attack Norway. Just a harmless thing, but enough to make clear that we want war. Norway does not have the army-technology that Sweden has but they'll probably fight back. Then Sweden just lays down their arms and surrender. Thereby we become Norway and get rid of a lot of crapy stuff that we have that Sweden don't.
And can you imagine what a great nation we would be in sports!
I've seen a show where they dropped a refridgerator on a raw egg. The fridge was Russia, and the egg was the Norwegian army, as to show the people of Norway what would happen if Russia decided to go to war against us.
Uhm... but Sweden is a whole other story. We would give you to Finland.
Why would we want Sweden? Expect the northern parts, of course. It would be nice if *all* the Lapland would be ours! *Muhahaha*
Would you like to trade Swedish Lapland to Ã…land?
"If we speak of Charles XII, we should keep in mind that he is the only commander ever to have conquered and held Moscow. No mean feat, something I?m sure Napoleon and Hitler would agree with.
He fought a series of wars foisted off on him, not for some larger strategic goal. This fact is clearly reflected in his campaigns. He was a true warrior, which he certainly should be honoured for!"
Well excuse me but Charles XII never got even close to Moscow. Let's take look of Charles's career:
12.2.1700 Great Northern War begins; Poland attacks Swedish possessions in Baltia. Soon after Denmark attacks Holstein. With help of Holland and England Charles stops Denmark but is forced to make peace with them so Danish army and fleet are left unharmed. Charles is going to move against Poland but Russia declares war and starts siege of Narva. Charles moves army to Estonia.
20.11.1700 Battle of Narva; Sweden defeats russians but doesn't take any advantage of that. And doesn't sign peace.
1702-1706 War on Poland; Sweden finally won after four years of fighting but meanwhile russians had built new capital in area that had been Sweden's.
1707 Tzar offers peace to Charles, who says he's going to sign treaty when he gets to Moscow.
1708-1709 War against Russia; Charles XII sends three armies against Russia: Lybecker from Finland, Lewenhaupt from Riga and Charles himself from Poland. Lybecker failed to take St. Petersburg, Lewenhaupt's troops were intercepted and destroyed. Main swedish army which was advancing straight to Moscow had to turn south to find some food. Finally they start to siege small town of Poltava in southern Ukraine.
28.6.1709 Poltava; Swedish army is defeated and Charles escapes to Turkey.
1710-1716 Russia conquers Finland.
1715 Charles returns to Sweden and immediately attacks Norway.
30.11.1718 Charles is shot in Norway.
1721 Peace treaty is signed in Nystad. Sweden gets most of Finland back but has to give up all possession south of Baltic sea.
That's brief summary of military career of Charles XII. And I don't see anything great about it.
And I haven't said anything about Charles XIV Gustavus because I haven't really studied him.
Hey Wanlorn! I would rather keep Ã…land as part of Finland. I like sail there in summertime. And I don't really like Lapland. There's nothing except mosquitos there.
I love the invasion idea guys! I'm in but I'm not sure about dalarna.. (sorry OA) couldn't we just give it to the norweigans?
and Wanlorn, if you want lappland, it's yours!
I have an interesting connection thingy...
In Norway there is an ethnic group called the Samis right? In Finland, there are those who speak Lappish, around the same latitude.
Finland to the Finnish is called Suomi which sounds like Sami. Are these the same group of people and do they speak the same language?
Changed my mind, we should only surrender to Finland.
Than we'd have no more of this monarchy rubbish.
Tod: But I don't *want* to keep Ã…land.. and, as we treaty with Sweden we wouldn't even need passports to go to Ã…land... and if Swden is going to join EMU, we would have the same money..
And besides, thanks to all sort of special treaties, Ã…land takes money all the time but dosen't give any. That is because of it's 'special' status. It would be far better with Sweden..
And Lappland would be far better if all its territories would be under one country... Norway.. want to trade?
Umm.. Sami is not the same as Suomi, but they are releted, same as finnish and estonian. Let's make Great Finland! Borders to Ural
I want Norweigan to take over Sweden!
That is the best idea so far.
If we speak of Charles XII, we should keep in mind that he is the only commander ever to have conquered and held Moscow
Actually you are forgetting Pontus de la Gardie, who actually held Moscow and was prepared to install Charles Philip as tsar of Russia, but was ordered home again in 1613 due to political reasons.
And I still think that Dalarna should conquer everything.
It was not Pontus De la Gardie who captured Moscow but Jaakko (finnish name) De la Gardie. And year was 1610. Pontus drowned in Narva river in 1585.
It's Jacob De La Gardie in Swedish but yeah he captured Moscow .
The trouble with relying on your memory, is that sometimes you will remember things wrong? And then someone might just take you to the cleaner!
Of course you are right, Tod and Obi Anne, it was de la Gardie who captured and held Moscow.
But you say nothing about my other points, Tod? How about it?
I absolutely refuse being surrendered to Norway! If Sweden should merge with any Nordic country, it must be Finland! They have way more pizzazz!
Also, we do have five hundred years of common history.
But then, they haven?t got a royal house, and they speak a incomprehensible language. Hmmm? Well, we can be bilingual, and they can borrow our king!
"But then, they haven?t got a royal house, and they speak a incomprehensible language. Hmmm? Well, we can be bilingual, and they can borrow our king!"
Finland is already bilingual, everybody speaks swedish (in theory). So when swedes learn to speak finnish we could merge Sweden to Finland.
Or how about we make a switch? We take your king ( and princesses) and you get our president.
You know, Finland *is* bilingual country. All official statements (signs, ingredients in foods, speaks by President and parlament etc.) must be in swedish also. That is also reason why all finns must suffer to learn to speak swedish..
Jag heter Wanlorn, jag bor i Finland, och jag Ã¤r sjutton Ã¥r.. well.. at least I can say more than "God Finland!" [I am not referring to one Moderator named Anne ]