Battle of Fraustadt 1706 - Swedish Invasion of Poland DOCUMENTARY 

Make a video on Battle of badr 313 only vs 1000

Sir made vedio on Anglo-mysore war.( india).. These war impact the American war of independence...on British French soldiers.. Invent the world first iron cased rockets..

oi šermukšnio **intensified ***

Congratulations! Your videos are like fruit sallad. Every each video has it's own taste and nature that satisfies a certain nerve of my body. You should be sponsored by the governments of all countries in the world. I visited many of European cities just because of your history channel. Best luck and most successful wishes to you guys. Just don't get biased and keep going as trusted as you are now. ❤️

Code doesn't work

You'd not question the name, would you read about the amount of balls the 450 Swedes displayed when defending the place in 1702, against 12,000+ Russians.

they named the fort in the first day of December

What do you mean? It was a tough nut to crack. lol

Nut Fortress Swede defenders: Dont come

The only nut no one could bust

I Wonder if Eugene would win or lose a battle against Charles

I would disagree, the Swedish cavalry was ofter the deciding factor in their victories.

Gustav II Adolf had the infamous hakkapeliitta cavalry, that also served as his personal guard. They had such rugged appearances, rumors spread that they dibbled in witchcraft.

At the time Polish cavalry was a mere shadow of its former self. In times of Gustav Adolf, not even his own personal guard could withstand a fight with Polish hussars. By the time of Charles XII, Polish "army" was but a glorified militia.

El Bandito is referring to the Battle of Warsaw (1705), for anyone wondering.

@@kamilszadkowski8864 The hakkapeliitta where light cavalry compared to the more heavy polish hussars. It would be a gross misconduct to ever have them fight one on one.

well you know Napoleon got influenced by Gustavus Adolphus, the father of modern warfare. Hence he was great just like the Swedes!

True. Here where I live, in Italy, we are overloaded of local history and because of that we italians know very little about the other countries' history. Besides the Roman Republic times, this century of Swedish history, the pirate golden age and the bronze age are my favorite matters.

Charles seemed to be a shooting star I best find out more

@@andreydragomirov8559 wait you what?

@@andreydragomirov8559 so...what's the diet? I'm super curious now

@@andreydragomirov8559 2.5 litres of beer a day! what kind of diet is this?! xD

I mean they did create a Killing ground At the battle of Fraustadt Turn around You will never survive

Przykro mi to mówić ale Łódź była wtedy wręcz wiochą

My grandad was from Lodz.

There's a reason some Polish poets have spoken of their nation as a Christ-like entity, suffering for the sins of Europe. A bit far-fetched, perhaps, but like all good legends it has a grin of truth

Will be frank here, the polish-lithuanian army was actually quite competent for an european major power at the time considering the disastrous Deluge half a century before. Their main problem was their officer corp, who was mostly made up of weak noblemen politicians, with little to no readiness for a war against the innovative swedish military doctrine and officer corp. Plus the political disagreements between the noble Szclachta and king Augustus II made the loyalty of the military toward the latter's cause very difficult.

At least he got some great cardio workout.

Dont worry Augustus has a plan Augustus alwas has a plan Just keep losing

I would have to, if not for the fact that he chose to declare war. I feel sad for the civilians, but Augustus? He had it coming... ^^

Henryk obviously never read the Talmud.

that's a cute thought

@@dreamdiction DA JOOOOOOS. Grow up.

@@joellaz9836 Anyone who thinks . . . "there is within us a moral instinct which forbids us to rejoice at the death of even an enemy" . . . has obviously never read the Torah and Tannakh. Please cry some more so I can paste quotes from your so-called "holy book" which rejoices over your bronze age genocidal racial supremacy.

@@dreamdiction Oh no. Ancient people were violent. How shocking. Didn’t Romans hold a triumphal celebration for killing a million Gauls?

but he did know how to use battles. He also knew that unless the enemy kings were deposed or surrendered under his terms that they'd be back later having prepared against swedish superiority. Tho seemingly stupid that he rejected countless peace deals, he knew precisely what he was doing

that line is such bullshit, Marching on Rome would have put his army exhausted army between two forces, 1 of which was in a fortified city.

@@hashtagrex did he? He spent years fighting a thoroughly defeated enemy for personal reasons, ignoring potentially lucrative diplomatic opportunities at the expense of Sweden's position. He may have known his own justifications (none of which were wise) for why he was doing what he was doing, but he catastrophically misjudged the situation. Your comments regarding kings are also very inaccurate for the example of Augustus, who had already shown that his personal authority and position was quite weak, and that he conspicuously lacked strong support within the nobility of the Commonwealth.

@@basilharpham9372 I never said it wasn't necessarily an inaccurate line - ancient adages often are. I personally agree marching on Rome was probably futile, but that is something we will never know the truth of. However, in the context of Charles, and his incompentence in diplomacy and statecraft, who got repeatedly generous offers of peace from all of his enemies (which Hannibal never received) it is completely accurate.

@@TheSamuraijim87 and yet Augustus was unwilling to give up the title of King, nor surrender under Charles' terms. He may not have been a remarkable individual, but any opportunity given to Augustus to reinforce his position for the future was a risk Sweden couldn't take. You also seem to be ignoring that Charles *very* quickly made peace with Denmark when it was under terms he wanted. He wasn't stupid enough to believe that his enemies wouldn't try again in greater force if he left them any opportunity to stabilise and improve their armies. Are you also gonna ignore how simple Charles' terms were? All he really wanted from the war was Augustus deposed. Thats not about being personal, its about the fact that he was fighting a defensive war, which you clearly don't understand means you're perceived weak. A show of force and victory is not enough to permanently secure your position in a defensive war. Let's say he gives in and lets both Peter and Augustus offer their peace, with trivial gains for Sweden, maybe a few territories. What happens after? The commonwealth and Russia fix the glaring issues that they exposed with their overconfident war and come back to fight Sweden much much stronger. Sweden has now lost all advantage in the future war because it didn't use it to its fullest during this one, and its armies superiority now means nothing because its numerically much smaller against improved, competent Russian and Commonwealth armies who had years to prepare to fight Sweden again. What if they bring in more allies, like they did after Poltava? What if they pass military reforms after seeing the Swedish in action and come back with the exact same tactics but with larger forces? What if they go on different military campaigns and gain thousands of elite soldiers with new tactics? It's ridiculously uninformed to say Charles was just a petty, stupid king wanting revenge. Sweden's position was one surrounded on all sides by enemies. He didn't refuse peace "at the expense" of Sweden's position. He ensured that Sweden's position changed

It’s almost as if the Swedes turned the field into a - dare I say - Killing Ground?

@@Psychonaut316 KILLING GROUND AT THE BATTLE OF FRAUSTADT TURN AROUND YOU WILL NEVER SURVIVE

Nononono Swedes: No bullet hits a human being without the will of god, no mather if ducks or stands, it is

@@Psychonaut316 Spotted the sabaton fan

Have you heard the song based on this battle, Killing Ground by Sabaton?

@@thecombatwombat7652 en för en flyr Sachsens män hem, död väntar dem 😼

@@solomon4554 Gjuterblod, moter doden vid Fraustadt. Synderflod, genom fiendens led. Gjuterblod, ingen nad kommer givas, dar. My keyboard doesn't speak Swedish vowels sorry XD.

Probably because he lost it all in the end. But it's insane that it would even come to Poltava if you see what happened here. Haha I did not knew it was such a troublesome situation right from the start.

Augustus the strong at the beginning of the war: "hello there!" King Charles XII: "king Augustoni, you are a bold one!"

@@iordanvassilev8091 more like you are a deposed one

Me too

Haha I love how Epic History TV's music choices have started to spread more throughout other history channels. Although the actual composer's (Ben Hayden) tracks can be found on Filmstro.

I think the turning point was Charles' decision to go for Moscow instead of taking the fortress in Saint Petersburg

As a Swede i think we can skip that battle! It just dont have any historical significans ^^

@@Strrroke I kinda agree.

Things were never the same after the Deluge.

@Persian Reich Partitioning of Poland: Are you sure about that?

Whole county is flat terrain and sandwich between big empires (Germans/Austrians,Russians,Turks) + rising Sweden .

@@howdoyouturnthison7827 Well, all Eastern Europe is a completely flat terrain

@Persian Reich Well actually the Swedish Invasion(Deluge) in 1650 was as most destructive as shit that happened in WW2. During Deluge it was first time that capitals of Poland and Lithuania were taken by enemy force(during Mongol invasions there was no Kingdom of Poland but only several dukes)

I mean if they looked at history they'd know.but then again each had their reasons of attacking so guess history couldn't dissuade them.

Napoleon was actually aware of what happened to Charles. He just thought that he could succeed where Charles failed regardless.

@@michaelsinger4638 And Hitler were aware of Napoleon's demise in Russia - but thought he could defeat Russia/Soviet in two months time after crushing France in one month.

@@mrnygren2 History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. Each was justified in thinking that way. Just because it happened before, doesn't mean it'll happen again. But there's a good chance that it will. Both took that chance. As a Muslim, I'm no expert in European history, but I think they both had no other way if they'd hoped to at least maintain the status quo of them being at the top of Europe. You just can't do that with Russia still standing! Just look at today! After the cold war ended...after everything that has happened, the shadow of Russian dominance over Europe started looming again! Europe's best hope is for someone to stab Russia in the back, as in, dismantle it from the east or south into smaller states. Maybe China...Turkey or some new power in middle Asia. All of those seem extremely far fetched at the moment. China is extremely huge already, and they have no important quarrels with Russia. I am curious of what Turkey and Afganistan will look like in 50 years tho. Turkey's been on the rise for a good 2 decades, and Taliban are doing something completely new to the world order in Afghanistan. Maybe they'll shake things up if they manage to stay in power longer this time. As for the USA, depends if a new world war breaks out or not. If not, Russia is fine. If it does, we need to first see who's involved. I don't think Russia would side with China if a world war breaks out, neither would China side with Russia. They'd both benefit of the other two weakening each other! Last thing that may end Russia is total economic collapse, which I don't think is as far fetched as it seems. A huge economic crisis is about to hit the world God knowing. Everyone knows that, we just don't know when. Russia and China have both been trying to become economically independent, but I don't think they've been succeeding. Depends on how firmly under the boot they can keep both their populations. I ranted again didn't I!

Poles 100 years prior has taken Moscow, so for him it was possible, atleast in his head...

And you butchered the spelling of his name, so I guess yall are both 0-1

@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 no in this case the captivations on the video did that.

@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 no he did not, his name was Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld

@@gunn-brittslagochetik2863 hey smartass, look again at his comment. It’s edited.

Gå på! ;)

Honestly to me this time period style of warfare is the most terrifyimg

Big balls indeed but it also helped that they had a very strong religious belief that their cause was just and dying for it was a sure way to paradise.

Musketeers back then did 2 rounds per minute on a good day, and cannon did less depending on their calibre. A brisk walk followed by mass fire when you saw the whites of their eyes ensures you only encounter 1 effective volley at most before they break from the shock value of your charge

Average Banzai fan vs Average Gå på enjoyer.

Devin's voice truly shines when he's narrating how barbarians of Civ VI utilised time-travelling technologies and fielded Medieval infantry against his hoplites.

@@Nishkid641 In that case I guess they accepted the fate of having to be someone's bitch lol. It also doesn't even make them any safer.

Actually Polish-Swedes wars started with Polish invasion of mainland Sweden at the end of 16th century.

@Alenas Kvasninas Why are Russian trolls like you so obsessed with Poland taking a miniature region in 1938? They seem to forget Warsaw did this in agreement with Prague, not Berlin.

@@goscodfilmow "They seem to forget Warsaw did this in agreement with Prague, not Berlin." The words of a true imbecile. Prague had no choice and was not even invited to the meetings. Our president had to wait for the decision behind closed doors while our allies conspired with Nazi monsters to betray us.

Imagine if they had the manpower of Russia or France at that time. They would've dumpstered Russia.

Well its very expensive to have a large proffesional army, so no the power would not change much

that was not the problem, carolus rex got drunk of his victories and should have just went back to narva region once he defeated the polish to defend his homeland instead of going into the ottoman empire and then suffered a massive defeat at poltava

@@smiIingman Fair point, but the whole point of them becoming who they were was precisely because they couldn't compete on the demographic and economic level. In this case, necessity forced them to innovate whereas had they had the same advantages as Russia, would they have innovated to do what they did?

@@fedorevdokimenko3978 lol

Small note, it's "See the Caroleans standing tall..."

@@Handles-Suck-RU-vid oops, my mistake. I will not redact it as to let your comment make sense when someone else is reading it. But, yeah, you are totally right

Also Europa Universalis IV

@@Berat-mm6pj Idk, I tried it but there are several issues that made me give up easily.

@@lucasjleandro an Empire 2 reaching from the thirty years war until the American Civil War would be awesome

@@lucasjleandro ❤️ and Medieval 3

@@aleksapetrovic6519 dont give up on EUIV it will pay of I swear. I have over 1000 hours and another million is on the way😂❤️

There'd probably be no Swedish involvement in it or they'd use it as a backdrop for a series about some court woman or whatever. I am not kidding when I say that most of the upper echelon of Sweden (those in the Arts community) and politicians look upon "the era of great power" as something shameful

@@Pottan23 It depends on how you sell it, the elites are snobs in a bubble whit no real convictions. Make the movie the tragedy its supposed to be. War is hell and this war was no exception. It ends Whit a desperate attack against the Russians outside of Stockholm after all. Not really a happy lucky glory ending, more like a national doomsday ending were all the men have died and the country is destroyed for two generations, you tell the true story about the war call it provocative and they'll produce it.

@@Pottan23 a black dude would play charles

See the Caroleans standing tall.

All for one and one for all.

En för en, flyr Sachsens män hem Död väntar dem Gjuter blod Möter döden vid Fraustadt Syndaflod Genom fiendens led Gjuter blod Ingen nåd kommer givas, där

Agreed. It's disappointing sometimes that rare series such as the Great Northern War are being released slowly while Alexander the Great's series, which have been covered a lot by other channels, are being released quite quickly.

That makes sense. But, unlike other channels, this channel already has millions of followers, so there is no need to cover a part of history that's already been covered by others. I'd rather see this channel focuses on covering wars or campaigns that haven't been covered by other channels, such as this one. Or maybe other wars and campaigns before the lifetime of Alexander the Great such as the Achaemenid Empire conquest of Egypt, Greco-Persian Wars, and Corinthian War.

@@hananreldy4395 I mean, it takes quite some time to make each episode; this is especially true for the Great Northern War, since the war has not been explored to detail in a similar fashion (apart from that Extra Credits or whatever).

@@Leaffordes Right. The thing is that I wish this channel doesn't do too many series at the same time. I mean, it's fine if they do only 2-4 series at the same time, but not more than that. I still remember that it took more than a year to finish the Thirty Years War series. I believe that they could have done it in three months if they focused on finishing that series first before moving on to another series. I hope that I don't offend anyone by saying this.

@@vinterskugga That's right. I still remember that in the end of the last video of the Thirty Year's War series they said that they would cover wars that took place after that such as the War of Devolution and the War of the League of Augsburg. I really wish that they would cover these wars first before doing other wars and campaigns that aren't related to the Thirty Year's War.

Land owned by a so-far undefeated enemy!

@@Rings-of-Saturn2 you tertible syco… Good for you 👍

"Tactical brilliance ?" Bruh, he just told his army to march straight forward over an open field into fortified positions. This has all the tactical brilliance of charging a trench head on. The reason this worked comes entirely down to the quality of the swedish soldiers, and the lack thereof on the Saxon's side.

@@ravenknight4876 I'm talking about the whole of the great northern war,mate.

@@azizbey4334 And I'm talking about the battle of Fraustadt.

@@ravenknight4876 it was tactical brilliance though lol? He managed to fool the Saxon commander, which was part of his plan. Rehnskiöld then chose a perfect location for his army to be able to fight the much larger saxon force, the ”Gå på” swedish infantry strategy was all part of the tactics + the flanking cavalry. You need a tactical mind to be able to achieve this

@@philipl7647 The tactical mind of a Lemming, I presume ?

🤣🤣🤣👍👍

You mean those that made this reality a video?

I don't think his army improved much throughout the war. But I can give Peter some credit for some tactically smart things he would do. Like the T-shaped line of redoubts at Poltava that caused devestating losses for the Swedish army. That formation was brilliant in the sense that it created the oppurtunity for flanking fire. And if you attack a redoubt with a line formation with a company, then can you theoretically kill 250 men with just one lucky cannon ball shot from the side. So the flanking fire was deadly. Peters handling of his invasion of Finland was also smart. Finland was a country too poor to feed a large Russian invasion army no matter how brutaly it would plunder the Finnish population. So food supplies had therefore to come from Russia. And the only way to get them to Finland was by sea since the road network in Finland was non-existent. The problem was that the Swedish navy was superior so transporting food by sea would not work. But Peter then changed his plans, and attacked Finland during the months while the Swedish navy was stuck in Stockholm and had to wait until the ice had melted before it could set sail to Finland. But then would the first phase of the Russian invasion already have been acomplished. Peter also reintroduced the galley into warfare in the Baltic sea. And it proved to be excellent in the shallow waters along the Finnish coast and the waters near Stockholm. The Swedish deep water navy was superior but could not follow the galleys into the shallow waters and destroy them.

ok

@@Rings-of-Saturn2 The battle was lost due to incompetence of the Swedish cavalry generals Hamilton and Creutz who squandered the Swedish battle plan of a surprise attack on the redoubts with their long delay. Many of the redoubts were conquered and passed and the attacking Russian cavalry was beaten back. So even with this disasterous start there was still hope for a win that day. Then it was time for the next idiot to enter this story: Roos who commanded a large chunk of the Swedish infantry. After his troops had conquered the 2nd redoubt a silence had suddenly fallen on the battlefield. Roos and his 4 battallions were suddenly standing alone at the redoubts and the Swedish army had moved on. And Roos had no idea where to go to link up with the main force. The idiot then decided to attack a redoubt alone just for fun and got half of the men in the (inofficially) elite regiment from Dalarna killed and all its officers dead. The attempt to take it was aborted. And he began a retreat and looked for the rest of the army. The Russians saw this lone force and understood what had happened and sent out a strong force to destroy it - which they did. And the Swedish army realized that it had suffered losses during the morning. And they prefered to wait hours for Roos to reinforce the army, but he never came. So the surprise attack of the Russian camp never happened. The commander of the highest responsability of the battle: Rehnskiöld had acted as an arrogant idiot the entire day. He had been rude towards Lewenhaupt and others, and he had not bothered to inform other officers about the battle plan before the battle - which caused much confusion, and idiots like Roos did therefore not know where to go with his forces. When some scouts had spotted the main army moving out from the Russian camp to go into battle, he did refuse to believe the news. He was too arrogant and assumed that the Russian army would remain passive and always avoid battle - like it always had done the last 2 years. This arrogant underestimation of Russia, did delay a Swedish response. And when he finally took his horse to see for himself the Russian troop movements, then he finally would react. But then the respons wast hastily and badly planned and organized - like everything else the Swedish army did this day. He lined up his infantry - 4000 men, to attack a Russian force of 28.000. The Swedish cavalry was supposed to help the infantry. But because of thick forrests on the sides of the battle lines was it impossible to line up the cavalry, so it had to walk behind the infantry and being unable to support it for a long time if fighting would begin. The Swedish infantry attacked the Russian line. The infantry on Swedens left got deleyed, while the Swedish right pushed onwards through a thunderstorm of Russian artillery, and managed to push back the Russian army. The Russian first line was crushed and start fleeing. And in earlier battles would this be a sign that victory was near. A numerical advantage quickly turns into a disadvantage as panic and stampede enters the mix. But as the Swedes push forward and gained ground on Russias expense, did the left side finally come into contact with the Russian troops a bit later, and they were quickly pushed back as Russia had their best regiments on the right side of the Russian line. It was now or never. Soon the line would break for either side. The Swedish cavalry could come in on the left and stabalize the front line while the infantry on the right would roll up the Russian line and win this battle. But that would never happen. The Swedish cavalry was sitting on their asses near the forrest and had not yet even formed up for battle as their friends in the infantry got murdered by the Russian over-might. Finally did a few squadrons get ready and moved towards the left. But then it was already too late. The cowards in Närke-Värmlands regiment and Östergötland had begun to flee and desert. and the Swedish line fell apart like a house of cards. And the Swedish cavalry squadrons arrived, but it was too little too late and they were soon cut to pieces. The Russian infantry and cavalry on the Swedish left moved on and encircled and massacred nearly all of Upplands regiment. And then they moved on and destroyed one regiment after another on the Swedish left. And soon there was nothing left of the Swedish infantry. And sure, the Russian military victory was total. 50,000 people were lost at Poltava and Perevolotjna. And the Russians captured lots of guns, musical instruments, flags, silver, Swedish plunder from other military campaigns in the Baltics, Poland and Germany, horse saddles, muskets, swords and other things in gigantic amounts. The battle could have ended differently, but many oppurtunities were wasted. What if Rehnskiöld had informed his men about his plan and prepared for battle in good time so the surprise attack would have failed? Rehnskiöld believed that a fast surprise attack would have made it possible to storm the forts easily without much bloodshed. So to not delay the army he did not carry any big cannons with him. And no ladders to climb on had been prepared. No fascines had been prepared to climb over ditches and moats. No hand grenades were distributed for storming a castle - none of the usual equipment and preparations for attacking a fortified position had been done. So no wonder that it ended up in a bloodshed. And when the Russian redoubts started to fire, then the Swedish troops had not lined up and a new battle plan had to be created there and then, under all firing and confusion. And many formations marched to the wrong spot. One can wonder what would have happened if Roos and his men had joined the Swedish army and stormed the Russian camp. What if the Swedish army had brought its many artillery pieces to the battle this day, could that have bended the odds enough in Swedens favor? What would have happened if Närke-Värmlands regiment had hold out for a little longer and the cavalry coming to their rescue? The Swedish cavalry was after all the only thing in which the Swedes had a numerical superiority over the Russians, and yet this was the most badly used resource of the Swedish army this day. Roos, Creutz, Rehnskiöld and Hamilton lost this battle, along with the cowards in Närke-Värmlands infantry regiment.

@@Rings-of-Saturn2 *"What you fail to take into account is the fact that those positions that the Swedes were trying to break through were held by the Russian front line units only."* The redoubts were to some extent taken. There was however many ways this problem could have been dealt with in better ways. 1. A succesful surprise attack with cavalry. 2. Stormning them with artillery, faschines, hand grenades, ladders, poles with ropes for climbing and so on.. 3. Avoid the redoubt line, and instead move the army to the western side of the Russian camp and then attack it. Thereby could the fighting in the redoubts be avoided all togheter. *"They still had loads of reserves to plug holes in the lines"* As I said earlier, even when the Russian infantry outnumbered the Swedish 28.000 vs 4000 did the Swedes nearly break the Russian line as in earlier battles where Russia lost to Sweden despite gigantic numerical superiority. War back then was more about psychology than about numbers and weapons technology. *"The fact of the matter is that at no time in the battle were the Russians close to routing"* The infantry attack on the Russian line nearly routed it. Tsar Peter was also fearful about his hopes about winning the battle after the first redoubts had been fallen and a Russian cavalry attack had beaten back... and he probably thought to himself... now its time again for one humiliating defeat despite numerical superiority... its Narva, Düna, Saladen, Jakobstadt, Fraustadt, Holowczyn all over again... But he kept his calm and didn't decide to give up all hopes of a Russian victory yet, and good for him to taking that decision. *"The Swedes on the other hand were suffering horrific casualties the moment they started their advance"* Nowhere did I ever deny that the storming of the redoubts became a costly affair. The commanders had no battle plan. The troops were not yet in formation. They had no artillery - unlike the Russians. And they had no tools prepared to storm the forts. And numerical advantage was more of a problem than an advantage in circumstances like this. The russians did not have to aim to hit something, and so many men flocked around the redoubts that it became impossible to move. Retreating men blocked the way of men moving forward to attack and everything was chaos. Men had no escalades to climb up on the forts so they were easily gun down or cut to pieces once they managed to climb up on the walls. So no surprises here. Swedish solidiers died because they were not prepared. And the Russians had well prepared defensive positions. The high losses was not because the Russian army had become much better than 9 years before. If it was better, then I doubt it would play a defensive game behind a wall like cowards. When it later that day finally came a field battle between the Swedish army and the Russian army. Then had many men already died at the redoubts. And Roos the retard and walked away with a quarter of the Swedish infantry into nowhere. And even despite all this did the Swedish army attack. And Russian cannons fired a hell storm of artillery fire for 9 minutes, before the Swedish army finally made contact with the Russian infantry and deadly fired a volley at close range and charged with swords and bayonets, and the first Russian line began to flee. So no the artillery bombardment later that day did not inflict that much losses. Most losses happened when the line was broken and men started to flee - like in most other battles of the 1700s. So that moment when Närke-Värmlands regiment started to flee was the moment when Russia finally won this battle. From that moment was there nothing the Swedes could do victory from the jaws of defeat. *"Even if my some miracle Sweden won the battle of Poltava that would achieve nothing other than a hollow victory."* Another victory like Narva could have destroyed Russian fighting morale and triggered an uprising and civil war in Russia. Ukrainian Zaporogs and cossacks would feel less hesitation about joining the Swedes. The supply problems in southern Russia would be solved. Fighting morale would be restored. And perhaps would also the Ottomans and Persians feel tempted to join in on the destruction of Russia.

@@Rings-of-Saturn2 *"saw his army logistically ruined through the Russian scorched earth tactics"* Ukraine offered much food for the Swedish army and it would not be possible to burn food in all directions. Especially not with Ukrainians on Swedens side and a Russian army on retreat after a lost battle *"The Russian population and army was never going to have a collapse in moral no matter how many battles Charles won"* The collapse of Russia in 1917 illustrates well that Russian patientence is not endless. Russia had fought for 9 years and lost battle after battle. Church bells had been melted to make artillery. Taxes had been raised. Russian losses had been much higher than Swedish ones - including those during the winter and the scorched earth campaigns. And the Tsars westernization program was not popular among all. There existed many reasons for people to rise up against the Tsar. *"The whole reason Charles was heading for the Ukraine was because his attempt on Moscow had already failed"* Partly that, but partly also that he hoped that he could join forces with the Ottomans. *"Russia was gathering strong allies in Europe"* Denmark and Saxony had walked out from the war. Poland had been taken over by a Swedish puppet. And after the humiliating defeat at Narva did Russian diplomats in Europe reporting back home that everyone was laughing at them. Russia had become the laughing stock in Europe, and the diplomats felt bullied and the butt of every joke people made. *"was ravaging Finland"* Nope. Finland fell in 1713. And the main army of Sweden was fighting on the western front. *"raiding the Swedish heartland"* The last years of the war after the King had died, and the country had been taken over by a weak leadership. Even so did the Russian army manage to humiliate itself at the battle of Stäket and managed to lose against an enemy it outnumbered 3 to 1. So I still not believe that the Russian army improved much throughout the war. *"had beaten the Swedish fleet as sea"* Nope. The Swedish high sea fleet still dominated the Baltic sea. *"he was going to dethrone the Russian leadership rather than negotiate a peace, because that was never going to happen"* The goal was to retake the lands that other countries had stolen. I consider that to be a reasonable moderate minimum demand he made. And none of the men he had to deal with deserved any trust since all had betrayed him before. Peter the Great had promised peace with Sweden barely a year before it started the war. And the cousins August of Saxony and the King of Denmark had betrayed a man of the same blood. So yeah, I would not have any belief in any peace promises from those guys either. If anything he was too kind to them. August should have been dethroned and beheaded. And the defeat at Poltava also showed that neither Denmark and Saxony cared anything about honor, since they happily broke their peace deal as soon they got the chance. *"Charles XII was a capable tactician and a fool of grand strategy"* Charles XII was a capable tactician and a fool of grand strategy. He capable advisors around him as a teenager. And he himself could also produce great battle plans. Like the invasion of Norway. And had he not died and it succeded then would Denmark be knocked out of the war, and Swedish troops could now be shipped to the Baltics to retake this nearly undefended area from the Russians. And without shipments of food from the Baltic ports would the Russian army in Finland either had to retreat or to be starved to death due to lack of food (The food supplies in Finland was inadequate for feeding an army of 30.000 men, so the food therefore had to become from Russia with ships). And thereby would Sweden be able to also retake Finland at a low cost. So he Charles war plan made much sense and is brilliant in my opinion. It would also be extra interesting to see what could have happened if Britain also joined in into the war.

Russian army, comanded by 67 years old one eyed general kutuzov… Like if you understand ;D

While listening to the Carolus Rex album by Sabaton

@@OneTrueVikingbard Exactly! :D

have fun taking and holding moscow...

I once did that in hard difficulty, I was able to get all of Russia LOL and even managed to take Baghdad and Istanbul.

@@richardbjuhr6356 sounds like a dare! Now I want it even more :D

In Norwegian, and a lot of other languages, a phrase describing something chaotic is "Polsk riksdag". Meaning "Polish Parliament", referencing the diet during the Commonwealth era.

@@GardEngebretsen So I've heard. I can't say it was inaccurate, especially during the "Saxon times".

But his pronunciation of everything else was horrifying

@@Artur_M. Most extreme case I know was in the Polish-Swedish war of 1600-1611 where the Poles won an overwhelming victory at Kircholm, but failed to capitalise, and even conceded afterwards, because the Sejm refused to raise forces to help or even grant funds to pay the already raised army of Chodkiewicz.

@@GardEngebretsen the real tragic part is that in the late 16th century, parts of Europe used "polish accord" as a way of expressing one's belief in getting along. Because the sejm (Senate) would actually work. By the end of the 17th century, the same meaning had become an insult at people who can't come to an accord. Fascinating how the commonwealth can teach so many lessons to us if only we care to look.

Apply Russian portwater to burned area

Since they went straight from Kliszow (1702) to Fraustadt (1706), I'd bet we'll see Poltava in the next episode.

Swedes won the battle of Jacobstadt, what are you talking about?

@@comradekapibarchik7997 They won the battle yes but could not capitalize and as they retreated the Russians killed prisoners from previous engagements not at Jakobstadt I simply used Jakobstadt to give a time reference of when it happened.

@@thestone9134 I think you're referring to the Battle of Gemauerthof (1705), which the Swedes won, but eventually had to retreat before the greater subsequent Russian army. I think (and note, I'm writing of my head here) that the Russians soon captured Mitau and killed many of the Swedish prisoners who surrendered there. Something similar happened at another instance, I can't remember the place, but I think it was in 1704 or 1703; some Cossacks killed a small Swedish party. The Swedish army avenged this instance at the Battles of Oderbeltsch and Tillendorf, in which many Russians and Cossacks were killed. The wars of the east has always been more ruthless than those of the west, all up to the 2nd World War; it was often a whole different ball game.

@@Leaffordes Yea that sounds familiar I may have gotten them confused not that many sources and it`s been awhile since I read it

The "lobster-tailed pot helmet" was an extremely popular form of head protection throughout the the 17th century, especially with cavalrymen. "Hummerhielm" was probably not his real name, but rather an honorific or nickname that he earned for being an exceptional cavalry commander if I had to guess

@@stevensonbak But that is how most noblemen got their name which they still have today, (in Sweden atleast) by great deeds in battle.

​@@torodensson1331 No it's not.

@@stevensonbak True about the existence of such a helmet, but 'Hummerhielm' was not a nickname, it was indeed his real surname once he was ennobled (previously, it was just 'Hummer').

@@xergiok2322 So before his ennoblement he was just Mr Lobster 🙂

Killing ground would be a better son since it is about Fraustadt;)

@@meanmanturbo even though you surrender Turn around, you will never survive!

Was looking for this ^^ Swedish version is better though (if you can understand it)