Battle of Narva 1700 - Great Northern War DOCUMENTARY 

Hi man, can you please do a video about the war that Ethiopia had against persia in yemen.

Any plans on making a series of Nader shah afshar?

Updated list of Kings and Generals unfinished series: -Roman - Germanic Wars -Viking Age -Napoleonic Wars -Three Kingdoms -Game of Thrones -Ottoman Wars -Second World War -Chinese History -Ancient Mesopotamia -Armies and Tactics -Iranian History -Roman - Persian Wars -Mongol Conquests -Byzantine - Bulgarian Wars -Arab Israeli Conflict -Turkic Nomads -Roman History -Cold War -Crisis of the Third Century -Swiss Mercenaries -Norman Conquest of Italy -Knightly Orders -Crime Syndicates -Islamic Golden Age -Ancient Macedonia -Early Russian History -Sicilian Wars -Byzantine-Seljuk Wars -Hundred Years War -American Civil War -Mongol Armies -Campaigns of Nader Shah -Byzantine Armies -Soviet War in Afghanistan -Byzantine Reconquests -Byzantine-Bulgarian Crusader Wars -Great Northern War -Italian Wars -Conquests of Alexander the Great -Ancient Celts -Germanic Tribes Go you. :)

Everything was beautiful and there was just one mistake I could spot. Scania was part of Sweden since 1658, before the Scanian war.

Please make a video on india vs pakistan 1965

Last I saw was Extra History

I'm guessing the content that does exist is in the Scandinavian languages or Russian.

@@anneonymous4884 the sources mostly are yes.

Yeah I wish they would go over the partitioning of Poland.

@@anneonymous4884 Unfortunately there is not a lot on this subject on RU-vid in Swedish.

Yay! Can there please be a video series on the Nine Years War and the War of the Spanish Succession?

brandenberg was not a major at all at that point yes their army was formidable but they were far from being a major power. they only truly became a major power after frederick the great

Very interesting indeed

without his father's great work on the prussian economy and militaristic logistics friedrich der große would have not achieved much. Also the crown _in_ Preußen was only with the "Yes" from Wien.

@@A_Imp_kon_floing...bdoing Not so much a yes as an omission (since they neither approved of it or openly opposed it as far as I know), from what I've read it was down to the wording of the title being 'King in Prussia' as opposed to 'King of Prussia'. Something about a law that nobody except the King of Bohemia may hold a Monarch title (prince was the highest). They could hold titles outside the Empire, example; George I, prince of Hannover and king of the United Kingdom as of 1714 (Philippe Prigent, Quora)

And all happend during problems with climate - cold long winters, food shortages, famines, pesant rebellion as the result

@@54356776 I don't think that's what the original reply meant. The climate problems did not cause the Time of Troubles, rather they aggravated the situation by having famines and whatnot on top of the preexisting political crisis. IIRC, the abnormal climate in Russia at the time has been attributed to the so called "Little Ice Age"

@@54356776 Yeah. For example such fires in Siberia last time occurred in 1915 .

They haven't covered anything of the 80's years war aswell. Such rich material as the HRE, England, France and Spain were heavily involved. Maybe we just have to wait, quality above quantity any time. And this channel has plenty of quality

There was Multiple Ivans

Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for sharing!

@Soldat Kaiyodo name?

Very interesting, I did not know that. It's simply called "Narvamarschen" in Swedish. But to my knowledge, it's only played in remembrance of the day Karl XII died. The reason the march has more meaning in Finland than in Sweden is probably because the finnish farmboys made up most of the armed forces back in those days.

@@ojvamysigt To some extent yes, but at the end of the war Sweden had lost about 200.000 men in total and 150.000 of those where from Sweden proper and an estimated 50.000 from Finland. The population did not grow at all during the war, it was even reduced since there was famine as well so considering the circumstances after the war, Sweden was much worse off.

@Stupid danish Indeed, Stockholm had about 55.000 people in it when it broke out and when it was over 18.000 to 23.000 people had died in Stockholm alone. The collapse of the Empire brought on a very dark period in Swedish history.

I am the storm that is approaching-

@@Danterobo Provoking

@@briantarigan7685 laughs In making russia burn their own land

@@Boyar300AV yeah but unlike the swedes they weren’t fighting proper infantry and they weren’t outnumbered

​@@Boyar300AV Russians had more people to use as soliders

Probably the Greatest Tactical Commander of the Modern Age.Rommel might be his equal

@@stephenheath8465 what about Napoleon?

​@@stephenheath8465 Rommel was seriously overrated

Rehnskiöld is the real MVP here

@@Svitjod rehnskiöld fucked everything up for the swedish army in poltava

How can a war be underrated?

@@ComradeIsy I guess he means not a lotta people know it

@@ComradeIsy um people not really talking about it. For example, The war of the triple alliance is really hard to find more than 5 videos compared to the hundreds WW2 gets

@@garycrasto1310 yeah

@@ComradeIsy It's underrated in the sense that not a lot of western europeans or Americans know anything about it at all and it's overshadowed in large part by the War of Spanish Succession that happened at the same time. It's also an amazing epic story of a young king who as a coronation present has his country be attacked by 3 other countries and succeeds against them constantly till he eventually fails. It's very much a similar to Napoleon's fate but a less known story.

Everything they learnt is to throw more meat at the fire.

That's pritty much how Spain failed. After never ending war in Flanders, it pritty much turned into training ground on how to defeat Spanish army.

Ur right bro and peter can say that cause he knows he can afford a war of attrition in many war war of attrition is proved a good strategy russia proved it to germany britain proved it too in germany when the USA started to help them and given recourcess to afford a war of attrition which rommels africa corps doom

​@@impaugjuldivmax yeah, throwing meat, scorched-earth policy, no matter the cost - have fun living with such leaders or generals. At least you know the meaning of those "big words" of those "great people".

When Napoleon went to war with russia he himself studied Carl XII's tactics and napoleon mentioned "Carl" as one of his greatest idols

OMG the March Across the Belts! One of the greatest feats in European military history

That march is truly epic

@@dominicguye8058 Barely fits the top 10 greatest european military feats. Actually, naw, doesn't even get into the top 10. Sorry.

Soooo. Ehm kinda... But actually the Danish took Scania back in 1676. Sweden then won the battle of Lund (1676) and the battle of Landskrona (1677). Skåne (Scania) was once more made Swedish in 1679 with the treaty of Fontainebleau. And well, then we slaughtered the Danish in the battle of Helsingborg 1710 and we burried the dead horses under the streats here, because they were spreading disease. Fun fact. And for the record, I'm not smart, I just looked at wikipedia because I don't remember our history :/ (except for the part about the horses, being 9 and hearing that your walking on horse graves sticks in your memory :P)

​@@jonoxes8662 Sooooooo. Not disputing the existence of the Scanian war The swedes conquered Scania in the treaty of Roskilde and then reconquered it in the Scanian war. The video cleary states the orignal conquest took place during the Scanian war , which is my point. That's all.

1706

A small correction, the battle of Fraustadt was fought on 13 February 1706.

Yeah of course, not without mistakes myself. 😄

Det går galet det går galet

@@vattghern257 I would disagree, especially on battle maps.

@@vattghern257 🧢🧢🧢

Big agree

Interesting comment

@The Death Star Probably. But from what I remember Charles XII too had that title.

@The Death Star Lol, well his title is literally history by now, but nothing stops you from calling him that.

Cool! One of my ancestors was field marshal Rutger von Ascheberg, a man who is very responsible for making Skåne Swedish.

@The Death Star - his son was better, he was known as Friedrich II The Great.

@Soldat Kaiyodo I was too excited to notice, thanks! :D

God save Charles XII

@@kraizmerentertainment2121 It was his enemies who started the war and not him. And giving in to their demands, would only have been seen as a sign of weakness, and thus increased the likelyhood that Swedens enemies would soon start another war to grab even more land at Sweden's expense. So fighting a war now was better than fighting a war in the future, while Sweden still was large and strong, and the enemies still not had gained much profit from taking more land.

​@@nattygsbord Pretty much any action except for going on the offensive through Denmark, then Baltics, then all of Poland and Saxony and then all the way through Belarus and Ukraine deep into Russian territories where no supplies could possibly reach him, would've ended with an incomparably better results for his country. Wars can be fought defensively. War goals are for kings/presidents to set and change. Diplomacy is among the most important parts of wars and he only started to look for allies after losing everything and being expelled into the Ottoman lands. Even then he behaved as a diplomatic cretin insulting potential allies and neutral parties. It's truly difficult to imagine more wrong a way to behave in such a situation than what Charles XII did. Even if you were intentionally murdering your own soldiers and whoring away state finances you'd be overthrown and killed before you could do a fraction of the damage Charles actually managed to achieve. He is the icon of inheriting all building blocks of a superpower and then senselessly burning it all to hell.

@@haha-ui3fp You have read too much Communist nonense. *"Wars can be fought defensively."* And offensive was the only option. Making a long war of attrition against 4 enemy countries with a 40 times longer population is a dumb idea. How little understanding of military thinking you have if you seriosly think a defensive war would be a good idea under those circumstances. Sweden had to make blitzkriegs and knock one country out of the war, and then another, because fighting them all at once was a war that was impossible to win. Bismarck was no idiot. He did not start a war with Denmark, Austria and France all at the same time. Instead he methodically beat them up one by one. And that was also Swedens tradititional method of expanding their country into a great empire. And it also succeded for the most part in this war. Denmark was quickly knocked out in year 1700. Then did Saxony and Poland follow in 1706. And most people thought that Russia soon would follow. *"territories where no supplies could possibly reach him"* You have not read a book on military history. Because if you had, then you would know that no army of the 1700s and 1600s could transport all the food and ammunition it needed. So how did armies survive? - They plundered cities and villages. Sweden could not support a large force of 120.000 men. So plundering the enemy and letting him pay for the upkeep of such a large force was double-good for Sweden. The enemy became weaker while Sweden could have a large army in the field that it otherwise could not support. Offensive warfare and plunder was a fundamental pillar in Swedish type of warfare. And other armies did the same when they could. Denmark plundered the rich Southern Sweden to make Sweden weaker and to not having to pay money for providing their own army with food. *"Diplomacy is among the most important parts of wars"* He did get help from England and the Netherlands as this video show. Most of Europe was however already fighting the war of Spanish succession - which was almost like a world war. So many countries had other things to do then to participate in the power struggles in the Baltics. *"Even then he behaved as a diplomatic cretin insulting potential allies and neutral parties."* It is always easy to be lazy smartass hindsight warrior/ armchair historian. I think he did an okay job, despite he could probably have played the diplomatic game smarter. The unrestricted naval warfare did anger many countries, just like Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in world war 1. I think the King misjudged the economical, military and diplomatical benefits of harassing foreign sailors in the Baltic sea. And did not properly weight them against the diplomatic benefits of not raiding foreign shipping. The Swedish King thought that plundering foreign ships would deter them from sailing to the Baltic harbors that Russia had stolen from Sweden. That would make the Baltic trade less profitable. So the value of this conquest would dissapear. Western powers would become uninterested in letting Russia keep its conquest because it would not hold any economic value to England and the Netherlands anymore. And Russia would see no value in keeping its stolen provinces because they would not give any economic benefits. That was Charles reasoning. I do not think that he was correct in his views. But he was not a person who insulted other countries just for fun. Rather he lacked interest and understanding of naval warfare. After the defeat in Russia did the situation get more dire Brandenburg and Hanover declared war. Here could Sweden gotten peace cheaply with those countries. And Swedish troops could then have been used on the other traditional enemies instead. But the King was too stubborn and proud to give up an inch of the lands his father had given him. Personally would given up a small piece of worthless land in Germany had been a small price to pay, especially if I could free up troops and conquer Norway. *"Even if you were intentionally murdering your own soldiers and whoring away state finances"* The King had won every battle he had fought up until Poltava in 1709. His army was outnumbered 3 to 1 and he had been shot in the foot so he could not ride his horse and lead his men at the front as he usually did. So I would say that Sweden would not have been better off without him. And the war economy under finance minister Görtz was actually pretty well runned. With very moderate sacrifices demanded by the Swedish people compared to other wars that had been fought. And this war lasted for 20 years and was fought against multiple enemies. It was a total war. Almost a world war. And yet was the national debt not higher than in was in 1762 when Sweden just had ended its failed mini-war fought against Frederick the Great's Prussia. Sweden walked out of the seven years war with a national debt of 620 barrels of Gold. While Swedens naitonal debt at the death of Charles XII had a national debt of 600 barrels of gold, after a much longer and harder struggle.

Like the English and French

@@fiddlersgreen2433 not for Aussies mate

@@fiddlersgreen2433 based and crown pilled

Danes and Swedes now are like brothers who always fight but if a foreigner comes and attacks either one, the other will defend its brother

The Danes took a long time realising they would never rule Scandinavia again, like during the Kalmar Union. Hence the many conflicts, mostly started by the Danes. But that was long ago. Today all of us in the Nordic Countries have a strong feeling of belonging together although we have had to navigate different routes trough the never ending turmoils created by larger powers.

Bum bum BAM bum bum BAM to the skies !!! see carolus rise

... Heisenberg?

WITH THE LORD MY PROTECTOR MAKE THEM BOW TO MY WILL TO THE SKYYYYY SEE CAROLUS RISE

@@mongkekhan3435 ALL THATS THINE SHALL BE MINE THERES NO STOPPING ME

@@DotmatrixHistory ALL OVER EUROPE MY RULE SHALL BE QUESTIONED BY NONE

Same, British red and Swedish blue are both so cool.

Yes, talk about punching above your weight!

@@ThePalaeontologist ottoman and british red, france blue and spain yellow

@@xavierrealmadrid7420 Swedish and Dutch were also mainly blue. Russia can be green

@@xavierrealmadrid7420 The French wore white before Napoleon, so did the Spanish

There is loads n loads of information and eyewitness accounts of this war, Problem is that Its all written in Swedish or russian. As a swede you easily get a bit frustrated with the lack of books etc in English about this war seeing that it was a very very important war were Carl XII pretty much could decide the spanish succession if he wanted too (Wich he refused to do even when other monarchs tried to persuade him) and seeing that this was the war that put russia on the map as a miltiary power.

One more correction. At 7.03 mentioned guaranteed rights for Livonian nobles were actually relicts from earlier times than from Polish rule. Those relict rights were already there when teutonic order and bishops ruled Livonia under Holy Roman emperor. Many of those relic rights were present till first world war but most of them were changed in the end of 19th century.

They made a coalition against him as he was so young, a new teenage king they looked to exploit, but he really humiliated them all (till he loses ofc)

@@fredbarker9201 he didn't really lose. He could, until the end of his live, have beaten them. Sadly he lost his life in Norway.

He truly was great, yes. Spolier: His consistently aggressive tactics and insistence on being in the midst of danger eventually caused him to get killed during a seige in Norway, yes he was attacking Norway, by happenstance. You can't be Alexander the Great 24 hours a day, unless you're Alexander. 🤷🏾‍♂️

Not a great diplomat though.

@@kraizmerentertainment2121 It’s a hard question… He WAS a tough leader and a warrior king, but that also comes with a prize. He wasn’t worse than any other ruler of his time, being raised on the belief of being chosen by God. His country was attacked and he did what he thought was right. BUT he also started to believe in the myth about himself and stopped listening to his advisors and generals. This would later lead to his downfall. I am swedish.. and my feelings toward Charles XII are devided.. Tyrant; yes.. like all kings during that time. Warrior; yes.. and with a disregard of his men and their lives. He’s been taken as a symbol of modern nationalists and I think that is worse than the king’s own legacy. He wouldn’t understand the modern nationalism or skinheads… He was both a man of war and a man of litterature. He allied with the Ottomans and judged people around on their ability on the battlefield; not where they came from. That was infused on his legacy during the 19th century by nationalist writers and historians, eager to restory Sweden’s former glory.

It was the last, most advanced form of pike and shot tactics, before the advent of line infantry.

True but to be fair was the weather the most important factor here. The snowstorm who was blowing in the perfect direction made the Russian defenses pretty useless and the artillery could not see what was going on either. And as we also saw in Teutoburger forest for the Romans, a storm rewards ferocity and make defending harder. That said, the Caroleans were far better trained and equipped as well, but in clear weather their chances of winning would have been really small. The Russians had rather well prepared defenses and far superior artillery which would had devastated the Swedes in clear weather. Still, even with all those factors, a Swedish victory was really unlikely against those odds but anything can happen in a war.

@The Death Star This is very much not the case. The Swedish army during the great northern war repeatedly proved itself against well-trained opposition (including the Russian Guards during the battle of Poltava, incidentally). In fact, the Swedish infantry did so well during said battle that they almost won the battle.

@The Death Star Prussia and Britian were not known for particularly high firing rate in the early 1700. All European armies used firearms of the same kind and had nearly identical fire drill and rates.

@@alexanderbergbacka6825 ​ Point is fair as Saxon and Danish troops were by no means subpar/irregular yet were repeatedly defeated by Swedish forces. However, when it comes to Poltava, I wouldn't say that there was any point when Swedish have almost won the battle. Were you refering to a segment of battle by the Russian fortified camp where Swedish charge forced the first line of a few Russian infantry regiments to fall mack 100 ish meters?

It's like hearing the start to Poltava at the end of Killing Ground/Ett Slag Farot Rott

What if we can just skip Poltava? :D

@@Leaffordes Poltava is just sad. Everything that could go wrong for the battle went wrong.

broooooooooooooooken dreams so grand sing of his final stand long live Carolus

Selam from Sweden 🇸🇪🇹🇷

You presence is a surprise to be sure but a welcome one

The Russian army certainly got rolled, and their corpses ricked up.

Narva gonna run around, and flank you

lol

as soon as I see a video on something about Sweden and it's a american making the video I click it faster than the speed of light, thats the Swedish rule Lmao

Well Sweden is now Swedistan (or soon to be) sooo...

@@DutchGuyMike Nope, I hope not.

@@deteon1418 Well, there are neighborhoods where the firemen don't go without police assistance, and where police men get pelted/assaulted by rocks and how there's huge salafist groups looking to overthrow the government and how crime and sexual assaults risen dramatically ever since the "refugee" crisis. Taking up SO MANY "refugees" (economical/criminal migrants) whilst having a relatively small native population wasn't the best of ideas, I wish I was making all of this up but I am not :(

@@DutchGuyMike Yeah it was messed up a bit. I hope it can be resolved soon.

Total War - Renaissance (1490-1640) Total War - Empire (1640-1800) You already have Napoleon Total War - Victoria (1815-1914)

I'd be fine with a reboot of Empire, with an actually completed game this time.

@@firstconsul7286 empire was fire af

@@firstconsul7286 Remastered, fixed, completed and with at least one alternate start.

@@kittogashi8561 Absolutely.

You do know that Peter lost the battle but won the war right.

@@jivkotodorov84 before Charles invaded Russia, Denmark Russia and Poland made an alliance to divide Sweden but Charles defeated all of them but still lost war because of Russian winter

Giorgi Jioshvili “Russian Winter” - hardest cope since 1709. Firstly, the winter was Polish, not Russian, as during the 1708-1709 winter Charles the XII was marching through the Commonwealth. Secondly, you know this winter affects Russians too, yeah? They are not some Yeti monsters. Honestly, I even think, that Swedish soldiers were better (or at least not worse) adapted to winter than the Russians. It is Sweden after all, not Italy or smth. Damn, this video is proof of it. So much, that I can say, that Russians lost, because “of the Swedish winter, because snow blinded the Russians” or something like this, but no, even though it is one of the reasons of their loss, it is definitely not the biggest one

@@comradekapibarchik7997 you do realize This wasn't just normol winter it was "the Great froze" the winter that Europe never seen before for 500 years also Peter used Scorched earth tactics. so yea

@@giorgijioshvili9713 - “It was the Great Frost” - ok, both of my points are still in power. “Scorched Earth Tactics” - yeah, this was much more important, than winter. However, they don’t only work in winter(Napoleon’s campaign and, well, the rest of Charles campaign to Poltava (just in case, Poltava was fought in July, not January)). So if you’d say that Swedes lost because of Russian Scorched Earth Tactics, I would agree with you, but you said “Russian Winter”, just nullifying Russian soldiers’ efforts during this War.

Even in ww2 they do teh exact same

Cold country breeds cold hearts

Spot on!

"We will then beat them once a large number of countries fight with us, we will build an empire, finally we will become poor and destroy ourselves after a humiliating defeat". Rince and repeat and you've got Russian history.

@@rob6927 They are basicly the tyranids

not T-Rex, but Carolus Rex, a far more dangerous species

@@cengizhandemirbas8641 A C-Rex perhaps?

Most soldiers in general are sheep.

@@cengizhandemirbas8641 right up untill he got Carolus Wrecked.

@Gaurav Khanna the russia czar fled the battle the day before and no their leaders weren’t inexperienced

no swedish people lived in livonia at ever, it isnt their homeland its the homeland of estonians

@@Anti_Septikum Estonians lived in Estonia? Like fr??

@@christianboi2142 yes I know amazing right?

@@Anti_SeptikumThats where you are wrong. Estonia had other nations rule over it for the longest time. Sweden was just one of them. Obviously also Russia and other nations

@@thegamephilosopher2214 How does that make him wrong? It was still the homeland of Estonians and not us Swedes.

As a Russian I am also genuinely waiting for continuation. Eventually you’ve taught our newborn modern army to fight and we had Poltava. Fun fact: in 90’s they taught us in school how Peter allowed Swedish officers to retain swords in captivity and held them with great respect, since “they were our mentors”. They don’t teach that nowadays in schools, it is considered non-patriotic. Shame, if you ask me.

@@bananamrs Yeah i actually don't believe it was only because of a modernized army that the Russians beat the Swedes at Poltava. Main reasons are because the Russian army were a bit over dubble the number of men as the Swedes had, the Russians were on the defensive they also chose the battlefield and because Charles did not command his army because he was shot in the foot awhile before, so his commanders had a bit of intern fighting. But the Russians defeated the Swedish army and thus many Swedes became prisoners of war indeed and they were sent to Siberia and actually integrated into the society even adopting Orthodoxy, some stayed after the war though they had buildt a life there. Some joined the Russians in their campaign agianst Siberian mongolian people. I have a book on the topic. You are right the Peter were very respectful to the Swedes which is very honourble. It's a shame indeed and everyone should teach the truth.

@@octodaddy4494 yes, you are on point. It was really hard to eventually win in that war and I count it as one of the most important victories in Russian history, next to Napoleon's Invasion and WWII (or, as we call them here - Patriotic War and the Great Patriotic War). We don't have special name for the Northern War but it is widely considered as the birth of Russia, leaving the ancient Rus behind. So yeah, I know Russia is not really popular right now and Russians also tend to be agressive about that, but as a Russian I want to say - I have a great respect for you, my ancient Sweden mentor enemy =) Cudos

@@bananamrs Great Northern War is a epic name for it =D Personally i have nothing agianst Russia i dislike America though and all it's degenerate culture that the west is taking from it. I know no one that dislike Russia either, mostly it's the goverment that is hostile and try to scare the people blaming Russia but the people don't dislike you. I also have a great respect for you and we share alot of history together our two countries since the viking age. I just hate that this war made us a minor power from have being a empire that other countries feared :( Sweden were strong but small in number, it could not recover sadly.

@@octodaddy4494 I'm sad too, that Sweden have't great power now. But Sweden is epic country with interesting history :)

The march across the belt is a great period in swedish history

this is so terrible to think of as a Dane. How stupid of the Danish King. Though you (Scania / Skåne) are still welcome back in the Danish Kingdom. I know you want to.

@@Boyehk no thank you. I want to remain in sweden

@@hermelin205 what? What makes you want to stay?

@@Boyehk love the country. Great in many ways. Still some stuff are not super but rather live here than anywhere else, especially denmark (had to include the rivalry)

Yes he was a true badass, unbeaten in personal courage and battlefield command, unfortunately for the Swedish empire, only a mediocre diplomat and strategic thinker.

Yes I think he was shot right beside his throat.

@@kirgan1000 Half the time I feel like he was just being stubborn to a fault, since all of his generals and advisors say he should do one thing, and he immediately does the other. It may have scored him the victory at Narva, but it led to the fate of Sweden at Poltava and at Bend. Especially at Bend, he refused to let peace be signed, but also refused to return to Sweden.

Vad är namnet på denna bok?

They wanted Sweden to win, but not as completly as the Kattegatt sund became Swedish. Instead they wanted it to stay contested water between Sweden and Denmark, better chance of good trading terms without having to invade by themself.

ooo how sweet

Charles XII could not pursue Peter I deep into Russia at the time, due to the lack of stored provisions, etc. The Swedes, however, made plans for a Russian invasion (Peter I was considered the main threat, even after Narva) as late as after the Battle of Düna. Although, since the Saxons had escaped relatively unharmed, and with the promising support from the Sapieha family to have Augustus dethroned, Charles chose to transfer the war into the Commonwealth - to secure his back before the inevitable invasion of Russia and to perhaps gain a strong ally in doing so, in form of future king Stanisław I.

Sounds like you’ve done both 😁

PPANNED!!

Your spelling suggests you got drunk anyways. Lol

It hard to wite if you see 2 keyboards

@@picklerick.n.666 i only haf onebyesterday but i gace fas some bwee already

Love that book!

@@pabloaragon3303 It's a classic! Would highly recommend his book on Catherine the Great too.

You've not heard of The Great Northern War?

In Russia we study this as one of the most important wars we had

@@antorseax9492 Well yeah, the Northern War is one of the less well known ones outside of the countries that actively participated in it

It is conflict that in fact ended independence of Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and enabled Russia to be balancing power on the whole Europe continent. Now Russians crave for something similar

@@antorseax9492 that's literally what he said. It's not that shocking, because most people who don't live in the area haven't heard of it, unless they're interested in military history and have happened to read about it. Many people who live in the area probably don't know much about it either. If I asked a random Finn whose ancestor might have even fought in it to describe "Suuri Pohjan sota" a little bit, I doubt they would be able to say much.

It's also referenced in the "March of the Björneborgers" which is a Finnish military march and also the honour march of the Finnish Defence Forces and it's also played everytime a Finn gets an olympic gold medal.

Sabaton has an entire album about the Swedish Empire called "Carolus Rex", mainly focusing on Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII

@Stupid danish Sweden has existed since way before that, the Suiones tribe were recorded in roman times.

@@Ackalan indeed. We were referenced in Tacitus' "Germania" from ca 100 AD.

Possunt nec posse videntur!

Source of the first quotation, please. Peter had a lot of bad sides but I've never listened he was that arrogant.

Haven't one of the band members gone to prison for diddling kids? I know one got accused of it but i forgot about them completely and never checked out how the situation unfolded. BAPTISED IN FIRE, 40 TO 1... YEARS IN PRIIIISOON

I just checked and sure enough, one of them was convicted in april for molesting a friend's daughter when he was staying overnight with them, watching Eurovision contest. So the poor girl not only got molested, but also had to watch Eurovision...

@@aw2584 That is fckd up. Both parts

@@johnqpublic2718 I though it was in order to honour Black Sabath. But this would make a lot sense

FROZEN GROUND RIDE WITH THE WIND

LOL... They were never "masters of Europe". LOL... Sweden merely had its little (short-lived) moment in the northeast corner of Europe. Please, stop the infantile hyperbole.

@@samuelwilliams9098 They’re doing pretty well back then, being one of the most effective and modern army in Europe at times. But in the end, never really achieved much like their Western European counterparts.

@@samuelwilliams9098 "masters" like "masters of war among Europeans"

@@samuelwilliams9098 while you’re correct in that Sweden was never ‘master of Europe’ you’ve made a similar hyperbolic mistake. Sweden was, for the significant amount of time between the 30 years war and the Great Northern War, the Great Power of Northern Europe. Charles’ position in Central Europe after his occupation of Saxony was a matter of great concern for monarchs throughout Germany and the West-the Duke of Marlborough himself, representing the anti-French coalition in the war of the Spanish succession, came to discern Charles’ stance. You’ve minimized Sweden’s significance in a rude and dismissive comment, with much the same infantile hyperbolism of which you accused the original comment of being.

I remember this one story of young Peter I going incognito building ships to gain first hand knowledge on the subject, his goal being to create a powerful Russian fleet in the future. As one of the commoners among the workers saw a young man doing a mistake in his work, he snatched away his tool, cursed him out, and showed him how it’s supposed to be done. Right after, the young guys gave him a coin and thanked for teaching a Tsar lol

@@Whoasked777 Very interesting story... I didnt know it. Indeed Peter I was a man always thirsty for knowledge. He spent time, on his visit at Netherlands, in order to build a future russian navy. He was so willing, that his dreams came true. As a second Constantine the Great, he planned a new russian capital, the majestic city of St Petersburg. In my opinion, he was the greatest leader Russia had.

@@xenofonmitsalas8905 I would’ve agreed about him being the greatest leader, but in this video I learned of him basically abandoning his men before giving a battle, lost a ton of respect for him for that.

@@xenofonmitsalas8905 and St Petersburg was built on marshes at a very high cost of life among the serves building it.

@@Whoasked777 Yes .... the bigger the dream, the greater the cost. However, Peter I of Narva, was different from the one in Poltawa. That war changed him and Russia also, and perhaps the whole european history.

Oh you! We all know nothing else of note happened and the battle of Narva was the only important battle of the entire war...especially nothing that would in some way impact the Swedish empire. No sir. Nothing more to see here! /Nervous Swede.

From the frozen north they came Fought for founding father's claim It was then, their tale, began Trace their roots from 16 strong By the king where they belong En tid Av Krig Wherever he goes, near or far, they are close For the King of Sweden they lay down their lives For the Swedish crown they stand By the king, at his command 500 years for the fatherland Marching across the belt Crushing blow at Narva dealt Livgardet our Royal Guard Sworn protectors of the throne Royal doctrine set in stone For the crown, you shall give your life By traditions from the past Swedish soldiers stand steadfast I frid Och i strid And if one should fall, yet another, heeds the call For king and for country they lay down their lives For the Swedish crown they stand By the king, at his command 500 years for the fatherland Marching across the belt Crushing blow at Narva dealt Livgardet our Royal Guard För Sverige i tiden Dit konungen går De gör vad som synes omöjligt Vad än framtiden spår Still for the crown they stand By the king, at his command 500 years for the fatherland Marching across the belt Crushing blow at Narva dealt Livgardet our Royal Guard

@MFX_media it's the same thing,lol.

@MFX_media Do you also call Denmark ''Danmark'' and Copenhagen ''København''?

King Charles, you ARE a young one.

@MFX_media Do you do this with every other country lol

@@pisaks6782 He must be very fun at parties

I like to compare him to Caesar a little bit when it comes to domestic policy and administration. Almost as soon as Caesar was done with the Civil War he was planning on another campaign, this time in Parthia and essentially a victory lap around Eastern Europe and the Black Sea after that. Charles didn't stop for peace because all he could think about was war, though that doesn't excuse hanging out in Bend for as long as he did.

@@NiclasLoof Karl had every chance. After Narva, essentially every one of his enemies had offered to make peace. He rejected it out of hand. Charles had chance after chance to make peace, and every time he rejected it. Rule through ego, which was how Charles ruled, is a recipe for disaster. His famous quote about starting and beginning wars is quite illustrative of his incapacity to compromise. And compromise is essential in political affairs.

@@firstconsul7286 yes, but Caesar had a gift for long term strategy, and he had a gift for playing politics. Caesar not only knew how to fight, he could make peace. He picked effective leaders to execute his policies and to succeed him. Charles rejected every single one of the many peace offers from Peter and Augustus out of ego, long, long before Poltava. He had chance after chance to end the war on good terms, but he rejected them. He could only conceive of unconditional surrender.

@@TheSamuraijim87 Yeah, that's why I only compare them in that tiny aspect, that they couldn't stay out of war. For Caesar it was starting new wars, for Charles it was finishing the current war at all costs, even Sweden herself.

@@TheSamuraijim87 Yep he was quit terrible, and one can argue that his military successes were largely just a result of his fathers reforms.

In the works!

If he hadn't left Narva he might have been taken prisoner and forced to sign a humiliating peace.

@MFX_media He isn't arguing that military history is the only kind of history, so your reaction makes no sense

@MFX_media Yeah, you will need some sleep son

@MFX_media Wow, don´t know why you got so pissed of by a comment? And thank´s for noticing what i did as a teenager :D

"Fools and roads"

@@KingsandGenerals haha, I'm surprised that you know it!

@@Strrroke I speak Russian. Дураки и дороги are still the main problems.

@@KingsandGenerals what a bomb shell! А еще "пьют и воруют")

nice mr youkilis

Prussias path to a great power came with the victory over a Swedish army at Fehrbellin in 1675. Russia became recognized as a great power over its victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War. And country founded by Swedish vikings. Swedish troops devestation of Poland during the deluge in 1655 destroyed the countrys ability to become a great power. The war exhausted both Swedish and Polish resources. And this contributed to a weak Polish state unable to defend itself from Russo, Austro, Prussian aggression. Swedish troops killed 20% of Polands population so it no wonder that Poland was angry on Sweden ever after. This gave Sweden a bad name in Polish history, so bad that Sweden is mentioned in the Polish national anthem. Also Norway see protecting their homeland from the aggressive Swede as a thing worthy of mentioning in their national anthem. And the destruction of the thirty years war was the worst period in German history according to polls. Worse than the world wars and the plague. So the "Schweden zeit" happened in a dark time period according to the Germans. And the plundering of Prague and destruction of village after village gave the Swedes a very bad name in Czechia, just in the same way as in Poland. But then came the 1900s and the nazis and commies made the atrocities and war crimes by Swedish troops in the 1600s to pale in comparison.

You got it wrong, man. The war in which Prussia got independent from Poland was a different war between Poland and Sweden, also known as the SECOND Northern War.

LONG LIVE CAROLUS!!!