”Gå på” is still a tactic we use today. When in a close fight with the enemy, the squad leader can order his squad to ”gå på marsch!”, the order is to be followed by a general direction of the attack order or end point of the attack. During gå på, every soldier have permission to use whatever weapon system needed to win the fight, hand grenades, rocket launchers and grenade launchers. It is extremely aggressive and according to the book, it is only meant to be used when the squad leader (or some cases platoon leader) can’t keep his guys organized and the enemy is extremely close to your own position. /Retired Swedish Marine
SbongePobBeats Grenade launchers = GRT (M203). GRK = Mortar. So yes, you’d use your grenade launcher if you feel like it and Ivan needs a grenade in his face to fuck off to Helheim You’d use a rocket if you felt like you needed it. Foxholes, vehicles and infantry in the open. Pskott (AT4) have a HE filler. So just blast away! I served as a squad leader, 2IC of a rifle platoon, infantry combat instructor and basic training instructor. Consider yourself educated on Gå på from now on 💋
I'd have to say my all time favorite is the blue and red of the American Continentals. That though is personal preference, not any judgement on quality.
As a Swedish history teacher it brings warmth to my heart that someone so far away is interested in our Caroleans, and makes such a well researched video about it! Thank you, you did great with this one :D
Russia is quite shitty when it comes to natural defences. They don't have nice mountain ranges and plateaus or sea to hide behind/on. That is why they are so large. They rely on distance their enemies have to travel when invading. That is why the only peoples that kicked their asses completely were the Mongols... They didn't care about the distance. You can bet that if Russians had the luxury of being able to hide behind the mountains like the Swiss can, they wouldn't be retreating as much... They wouldn't have to. The size is Russian downfall as well... You can't cover all that land effectively, especially back then. So yes they were retreating a lot if the enemy was too strong. But that is the thing... Saying that Russians are incompetent because of that is like saying that British were incompetent because they mostly relied on the navy to protect their maritime empire.
Not only urban fighting. We were taught "Gå på marsch!" When assaulting a position anywhere basically. AK's on full auto, 58's firing from the hip and just run and chuck grenades.
@@xifel72 The English translation of "Gå på [honom]" (honom being the target) is "Go at [him]". So yeah, basically attack/confront. The phrase is also commonly used in sports etc.
The muskets would not be slung across the back as that took too much time but were rather carried in the left hand so that it could fairly easily be brought into action as needed. With regards to the pikes it was a simple matter of drill to shift from having the pikemen in the centre or interspersed through the entire battalion line. A much trained movement it was even done at the run during the battle of Kliszow 1702 to counter Polish cavalry.
Early pike and shot formations put the mobility in the "wings" of shot. They are able to run back into pike cover and manouver around the bigger, denser pike block.
One thing you missed about the two recruitment systems: switching to the alotment system, meant that the crown no longer could force conscription after conscription to replace losses. The rule was, that if a soldier died in the field, he would not have to be replaced until a certain day of the year, if I remeber this correctly. Thus, it meant a bigger cost for the local society in peacetime, but also gave them a bigger protection from the more or less never-ending conscription, which was so rightfully feared in times of war. The alotted soldiers was provided with small farms for their service, where they would spend most of their time, during peace. While not mobilized, the soldier would mostly support himself by working this little farm, but would also get some support from the farmers in the rote. He would also sometimes have to train, in order to maintain his military skills. Artillery and special guards units, was made up of full time professional soldiers. Thus, they were not alotted. Most cavalry was alotted in a slightly different way than the infantry. It was some time ago I read about this, but if I remember this correctly, cavarlymen was kept by rotes of bigger and wealthier farmers, who could afford to keep the cavalryman with a horse. Infantry, and naval sailors, were kept by more normal rotes. This, of course, meant that the Swedish navy at this time was mainly not manned by full time professional sailors. Compared to for example the Danish navy, the crews of the Swedish navy were naturally somewhat inferior in terms of seamanship. On the other hand, the Swedish navy could mobilize its sailors much faster. The Danish navy enrolled civilian sailors in time of peace, and relied on them to come back home to serve in the navy in wartime. This could obviously take some time. Also, "gå på" should be translated to "go on", nothing else. It is a direct translation, so I would just say "go on" when I speak English.
but it did not help them when they faced that worst case scenario at Poltava and lost the whole lot they are up a creek with no army to speak of till they could get there replacements in and even then all of there larger foes in terms of manpower could simply just grind the swedes down by attrition and more. every day though out the year and grind the swedes down so badlly that by the time they get there replacments they will never be at full strength for the coming year of the campain they would need to rely on mercenaries and what not to compensate for that to force there foes to devide there resources thus lessening there resroces they could bring to bear against the swedes.
The Swedish army did no lose their whole force at Poltava, there were still considerable forces elswhere. The problem was that these troops were tieded down in local defence and could not be concentrated into field armies nor used as reinforcements without dangerously weakening a position. And the ordinary regiments lost at Poltava were replaced within 6 months of the battle and would go on to defeat the Danish invasion of Sweden. The problem was replacing the extra-ordinary and enlisted regiments lost at Poltava as these were not part of the alotment system and thus did not have an replacement system that could deal with the complete loss of a unit.
"Most cavalry was alotted in a slightly different way than the infantry. It was some time ago I read about this, but if I remember this correctly, cavarlymen was kept by rotes of bigger and wealthier farmers, who could afford to keep the cavalryman with a horse." I remember reading from somewhere that the area that had to support a cavalryman got some sort of tax break to offset the higher cost.
@@seneca983 That is correct, the so called 'rusthållare' got a tax reduction equal to the cost of mantaining the horse, uniform, weapons and other equipment. And while conscription was in use the 'rusthållare' as well as his family and household was exempted from conscription which made cavalry service popular while being conscripted into the infantry was feared and detested.
I know Sabaton gets a small amount of hate for popularising stuff without going into enough depth etc but thanks to them, stuff like this are actually known and less obscure.
Which is hilarious to me because their job is to make good music (which they do) not to educate people in depth on a topic. Even though with Sabaton History they do it to some respect.
Which is hilarious to me because their job is to make good music (which they do) not to educate people in depth on a topic. Even though with Sabaton History they do it to some respect.
No I learned this in school and from my father. Not from Sabaton. I have been interested in the caroleans since in was 5. I like reading about my countries history since it's being ruined now. But everyone knows about the caroleans. At least everyone I know, you just need to have ears in school to know it.
@@A30_TKDno, that's your experience. Not everybody knows about the caroleans, even more, if you are not swedish or interested in early modern history, you probably don't know about them. If it weren't for Sabaton and Empire Total War, I would barely know anything about the Swedish Empire.
Let's just all agree that 'Stormaktstiden' is a much more awesome and cooler word than the 'Swedish Empire'. Also, purely because of this video, I now dream of Brandon going through the many farbs present within the movie "Sovereign's Servant ".
@@BrandonF As a Swede that has spent many years studying Swedish history; of the Carolean period in particular as I am without a doubt a giddy little fanboy for this period of time in particular, just the sight of the Swedish soldiers alone bring me as much pain as the Patriot and its ilk of movies, wherein the Sovereign's Servant belong, does to the likes of you, Brandon; myself included.
One important part of discipline was a serious christian faith. More so than most other armies. One of the sayings on "Gå på" was "There is no use ducking. If god wills you to take a bullet it matters not if you duck.". Another aspect was how they grouped people who where living close to each other with each other. A lot of the enemy where conscripted militia from all over mixed together. You wouldn't want to loose face towards your neighbours. Both encouraging by friends and fear of loosing face. Another interesting fact is that the pikemen where also armed with swords. How they used it I do not know but they had it.
In Norway we call having a stubborn, postive will to succeed as "gå på vilje", or "gå-på will". Now I know where the phrase have it's origin. So to use another common Norwegian phrase: "One learn something new every day". :) Thanks for the production.
The Norwegian commanders knew their troops could not stand up to the Caroleans in battle. So they stayed in their fortresses. The invasion in 1716 failed when the citizen of Fredrikshald (modern day Halden) burned their city (to deny supplies to the besiegers), and the Danish-Norwegian Navy destroyed Charles XII's supplies. The second attempt in 1718 ended in defeat for the Swedes, because Charles decided to stick his head above the trench.
@@JDahl-sj5lk If he tock Norway he whould have brought denmark to its knees and made Sweden strong again. Now we had to wait 100 years for that union to happen. After that one can only hope he would have gone back to stockholm and take himself a wife and children and settled down. Sparing us the dissastrus rule of hattarna och mössorna partys . Who brought us in to a disastrus war against fredrick the great. And the line of holstein gotthorp and the dilerious king Gustav 4 Who tought it was a great idea to make war against Napoleonic france. witch in turn lost us Finland. Actually The house of Pfaltz produced our greatest kings. Even moore so then the House of Vasa who had a mixture of great and terrible kings. . Charles X, Charles Xl and Charles Xll was not only great commanders in the battle fields. They were great statesmen as well and reformed sweden in good ways. They seemd to pass down their competens to their children. And sweden lost something really special when we lost them. If Charles Xll had lived and had a son who was anywere near as competent as his father, grand and grandgrand father. Then we would problebly have a unified scandinavia today and we (scandinavia) would all be better of for it.
@@JDahl-sj5lk Even though the Swedish invasion of Norway in 1716 is quite unknown in comparision, I still find it to be one of the more interesting ones. Do you know any good recent Norwegian literature about it?
H S Its actually important to note that in general in comparison to the Danish army, the Norwegian army did much better against the swedes in pretty much every war. For example, during the Dano-Swedish war of 1657-58, the Norwegian army defeated the swedes in a number of engagements and even captured Karlstad in central Sweden. There was a real threat that the Norwegian army might be able to march on and capture Stockholm, but before the Norwegian army could move further, the Belt froze, and the Swedish army was able to march across the frozen sea and capture Copenhagen by surprise, causing Denmark to surrender, giving up Halland and Bornholm to Sweden, and forcing Norway to give up Bohuslen and Trøndelag to the swedes
@@LordDim1 Sweden was fighting in Poland in 1657-58, and the entire country was held by Swedish troops but the Poles were fighting a guerilla war and refusing to surrender. Sweden couldn't get any peace deal. Meanwhile did Russia mass troops along the Swedish border and prepare itself for war. Sweden's relationship with Brandenburg was also so bad that a war seemed very possible. And Austria was a traditional friend of Catholic Poland (Sweden's biggest enemy), and Austria and Sweden had also recently fought the 30 years war so Austria also seemed to want a war with Sweden. Denmark knew Sweden's situation. And Denmark did also have an alliance with the Netherlands - which was also hostile to Sweden. So Denmark declared war on Sweden despite the Danish army was badly prepared for any war. The Danes expected that the Swedish army would be too busy with their other wars that they would have no troops to spare against Denmark, so the war would therefore be an easy piece of cake he thought. But he was terribly wrong. As soon as the Swedish King heard that Denmark declared war on him, he changed his plans instantly. He gave up Poland despite he had conquered all of it. And instead he took most of his army of veterans out from Poland and walked into Germany, and then over to Denmark and conquered Jylland. And when the winter came did he walk over the frozen Baltic sea and threatened to take the Danish capital Copenhagen. The Danish King panicked. He never expected this. His information about the situation was limited. He did not know where the Swedish army was or how strong it was. And much of his army was fighting in Sweden, and thereby leaving the capital weakly defended. If Copenhagen fell then it would be game over with Denmark, so the Danish King desperately tried to get a peace deal and save whatever he could of his empire. And Denmark lost its richest province, a part of Norway Sweden got a new western coastline in Bohuslän. The terms were hard for Denmark, but they could have been worse. But the Swedish King wanted a fast peace deal so he happily sacrificed some of his demands... because he did not want the frozen ice to start melting and Dutch warships cutting the Swedish army off from the outside world. And he felt no need to be hard on Denmark now, since he planned to break the peace deal and siege Copenhagen again and steal all of Denmark the year after - a plan which later on failed, and led to Swedens loss of the Norwegian Tröndelag province. As you see did the real action in this war take place in Denmark. And the rest was just a side show. Skåne was the prize that the Swedish King wanted most of all, but the Swedish army did not accomplish much in the fighting in southern Sweden during the war. The loss of Jämtland to Norwegian troops did not matter much, since it was a province with an extremely tiny population and no economic value. As I said earlier was the Swedish army involved in many wars and could therefore not have its army located in Sweden to protect all fronts from foreign aggression. Swedens priorities did also lay in the richer more densely populated Scandinavian provinces in the south. I doubt that the Norwegian conquest of mid-Sweden say that much about either about the Norwegian or the Swedish army.
Going to chip in with the fact that the Great Northern War saw the Swedes commit a series of strategic blunders. They declined pursuing Tsar Peter to Moscow after securing victory in the north, instead choosing to go south and close off the Polish front. This meant they had to advance on Russia from the east, which is a bad idea - rivers, rivers, so many rivers, each of which had an opposed crossing. Further, they believed in a promise of Cossack reinforcements from the south, which Carolus Rex outran his own supply train to get to. The reinforcements turned out to be pathetic compared to what they were promised. Then, realizing they had neither supply nor reinforcements, they had to push on towards Poltava - the closest city within which they could winter. More rivers, more snow, more Russia. This was what the Caroleans had suffered before the battle of Poltava. Half of their men dead to attrition, supply low, food gone, and the constant whittling away that was mentioned here. It was strategy, much more than tactics, that saw Carolus beaten. Much as I admire him as a tactician, Carolus Rex was just a plain worse strategist than Tsar Peter the Great, and his army suffered for it. Much love to Söta Bror from Norway.
Actually Karl XII advanced through the "smolensk gap" towards Moscow wich means less river crossings than advancing from the north. Also he had an allied polish base behind him. So it's not obvious that he made a strategic error.
No it was more logistics that killed them. Nobody seems to mention logistics. Today it is still the backbone and vital part of all countries and economy. The further you go, the longer the supply line becomes and that slows everything to a crawl and everything you need stops. This is what tactical retreats thrive on. Pulling your enemy away further and leaving them in the middle of nowhere. Meaning nearby companies and troops can't reach you as fast and retreats become more hazardous.
The Ottomans were in the vicinity and could have supplied critical essentials extra manpower perhaps skirmish or busy the Russians before Poltava but nevertheless Russian winter won Peter rejuvenated Carl never the same again ( like Napoleon) Carl was the better general but lost as he wasn’t as cautious very daring and always on the offensive all the while Peter was cautious strategic along with playing the elements against the Swedes not to mention on Russian soil basically his supply lines aren’t threatened like the foreign Swedes Nevertheless got to admire the Lion of the North he lived the way he died fearless But Peter survived to build his empire Imagine if Young Carl became the new Czar Russian history would have been very different
Well not only our teachers, technically, wasn’t it the Swedish Vikings who founded the Kievian Rus? I think I remember from history class that the people living in what is now Kiev requested strong leaders from the Swedes, and they then formed what became the Kievian Rus. Ofc later the Mongols came crashing in. But that would mean that not only where the Swedes the teachers of the Russians, they where the fathers of Russia along with the Mongols. Talk about a bad ass country, made from two of the greatest warrior civilizations know to man.
Jesper Ohlrich , I mean, yeah, you can call vikings “the founders of russian statehood”, but they didn’t really bring any influence or tradition with them on to slavic soil. Viking names, maybe? Oleg, Olga, Igor, etc. Mongols, on the other hand, brought a shit ton of influence.
I don't know if it has any connection with this but in Denmark we have a saying that someone has "Gå-på-mod" (Gå på courage). It is a term used about people with a burning will and desire to do something
The last of the Caroleans was Rutger Fuchs (1682-1753). At Gadebusch he led his troops uphill in the fog and suddenly found himself in hand-to-hand combat with the Captain of the Danish Kings life guard. They fought for life of death until he killed the Danish Captain, and Fuchs fell to the ground with six-sevens wounds that would limit him for the rest of his life. 1919 it was a 300 years celebration during one week, of the Battle of Stäket when Rutger Fuchs led his troops against the Russians (1-3) in what has became the last time a battle was fought on the Swedish mainland. Btw Rutger Fuchs is a relative of mine
@@JohnyG29 Prove what? And if you feel it is necessary after 300 years, why is is improtant to you? You will find my legacy by his sisters, since he didn´t have any childs of his own.
@Pasha Staravoitau Tsar Peter himself said that he at first thought that the battle had been lost after the Russian army was on the retreat and the first positions had fallen into Swedish hands. But the Swedish army failed to fully exploit its early success, and the Swedish cavalry were nowhere to be seen when the infantry needed support for its final push. And the Swedish army did for some reason also choose not to use any of its artillery - which would mean that storming prepared enemy positions would become costly affairs for that day.
@@nattygsbord A good general view of what happend. Yet a bit simplified. One of the first reason why the Swedish lost the battle was due to the confusion of orders. The column commanders had not been given clear orders to weather the Russian line of redoubts were to be actually captured or just to be passed through. That cause generalmajor Roos to remain with his column, almost a third of the infantry of the army, at the redoubts trying to attack and capture one of them while the rest of the army passed through towards the Russian main camp. However again orders were confused. One reason for this was that the king was wounded in the foot and was carried along on a stretcher. Overall command had been given to fältmarskalk Rehnskiöld, the commanding officer of the cavalry. Rehnskiöld did not get along with the commander of the infantry, general Lewenhaupt. Lewenhaupt wanted to storm the Russian main camp at once, before the Russian army could march out and deploy. However, after an argument with Rehnskiöld was ordered to turn left and assemble to the west of the Russian camp were the Swedish army was to regroup for the final assault on the Russian camp. The entire plan was supposed to be a surprise attack on the Russian camp, to get the enemy before they could deploy. That way the Russian numerical superiority would have been null and void. Hence speed was vital and that's why only four cannons were brought along for the attack. However after the Swedish army had assebled to the west of the Russian camp Roos and his column was missing. They were still stuck at the redoubts trying to capture them. Something that had passed by both the king, Rehnskiöld and Lewenhaupt. They hoped that Roos was on his way and waited before regrouping and commensing the attack on the Russian camp. However as they waited the Russian army marched out of their camps and deployed in to lines of battle infront of the camp. Rehnskiöld recieved reports off this but refused to believe that the Russians had the audacity to do that. He gravely underestimated his enemy. Once even he had realiced what the Russians were up to it was to late for the original plan to work. The surprise attack had failed. Yet the decision was made to form the battle line and attack even though Roos' column was still missing. The infantry deployed in a single line however the battlefield was to narrow for the cavalry to be fully deployed on both the left and right flank as was custom. The Swedish army advanced bravely and recieved the full force of the Russian firepower, musket aswell as regimental cannon. The Swedish infantry battalions took serious casualties even before they reached the Russian first line and could charge it. However the charge was done and the center of the Swedish line managed to penetrate the first Russian line, causing the Russian center to withdraw into the seconf line however at the flanks the Swedish infantry suffored the effect that the cavalry could not be deployed as intended. In the meantime Roos column had been attacked by Russian cavlry and forced to withdraw to an abandoned Swedish redoubt. Here they were forced to surrender as they faced owerwelming odds and was low on ammunition, had taken serous casualties and were demorolized. Outside the Russian camp the Swedish fate was cealed when the Swedish infantry flanks were forced back and the withdraw resulted panic and route. This developed into an all out route for the Swedish infanty as panic spread. In the meantime the cavalry had only been able to be depoyed and thrown into the battle piecemeal. And as the route was a fact the only thing they could do was to try and cover the fleeing infantry. And several squdrons did this by committing to nothing less than suicidal attacks against both Russian infantry and cavalry. The Swedish did not lose the battle because they were outnumbered, or because they could not deploy their cavalry, nor because they had only brought four cannon for the attack. The Swedish army lost the battle due to bad and confusing leadership. Something made worse by the personal conflict between Rehnskiöld and Lewenhaupt. Any army that does not have a clear chain of command is doomed to fail. And that was what happend at Poltava. Had the battle plan been clear to every commanding officer, from the king all the way down to the regimental and battalion commanders the goal of the operation would have been clear and history might have taken a different outcome on that day.
@@Verdunveteran Indeed. The Swedish leadership deserves the overwhelming part of the blame for the loss. Rehnskiöld for his unprofessional treatment of Lewenhaupt. The King for his habit of keeping battleplans a secret until the last moment instead of showing leadership in this dire situation. The King had won every battle he fought before Poltava so he was perhaps too overconfident in himself and thought of himself as a huge military genius. This time around he had a wounded foot and could not lead his men as he used to, so therefore I think one should have expected him to delegated more power to Lewenhaupt and Rehnskiöld and made the plan totally clear to them and made sure that all disputes between them was solved be over before the battle begun. Furthermore do the King deserve the blame for not using the artillery. And the commander of the army in Finland also deserves some blame for not pushing against St Petersburg and tying up Russian regiments from other fronts. His passivity, selfishness and cowardice could possibly have allowed the Russians to send more troops to the south to help the Russians fight the main Swedish army at Poltava instead. There were lots of multiple small factors which also helped to create this disaster, altough I agree that confusion and the bad teamwork was the most serious failings on the Swedish side.
@@nattygsbord I read that when Narva happens, the Swedish field army has lost a bunch of its artillery and is low on gunpowder for what they have remaining. The russian army has a big artillery advantage when the battle starts.
@@ostman9412 yes , yes they did ^^ i was a member of a cultural-Association anno: 1712 where we dressed as Caroleans and marched and did drills/exebitions etc and we learned some of the marching songs of the time :) the only one i remember (this was 10years+ ago) is "Min hatt den har tre kanter" wich exists in almos every language it seems :p
The secret wasnt just the "gå-på" march, but also that the caroelans, on the field, always used the tactics of attacking. When they were attacked, they simply attacked. Furthermore, didnt you kind of forget to mention Karl X who was as impressive as his child and grandson? Anyway Brandon, It was great to see this movie, and one doesnt get tired listening to you. I can also see that you at one place used a pic from our Swedish group "Kongelige Bohus Elfsborghs Caroiner" doing reenactment in Wismar Germany, which we do every year. Ones again, thank you!
@@Nernj5 had that in mind, but looking into what it actually is then i decided; no. its basically just a regular storm with no consideration to your own life. Going on a suicide mission is not noteworthy in this context imho. but hey, its defo something that can be argued
Gå på, marsch, was still a thing in 2011 when I left the Swedish army after roughly 15 years of service. By that time it meant that, while keeping the overal formation, fight togheter with your battle buddy, (or what it is caled in English) and with fire and close combat weapons (bayonet, butt of the gun etc.) close with the enemy and kill (or routh) them. A bit of a last ditch metod when things were getting out of hand and the officer or section leader desided that it was to difficult to try and control the fight. Point in a direction and start the meatgrinder basicaly. I am glad that I never had to test the metod in combat since I have my doubts about the metod in a modern context.
It needs to be said that the ~"marsch forward then volley then charge" predates Karolinerna and is mostly the same or very similar to what was developed in the late 16th to mid 17th century. It should also be noted that the Dutch achieved their independence from developing a similar way of fighting. The doctrine was mostly developed during the many and often dreadfully lost battles with the Poles, whose not!knights/heavy cavalry tended to be devastating. The main thing to remember about this is that the officers in command always tried to vary the advance in such a way as to provoke the enemies to start firing as early as possible, and in such a way that they were unable to fire large volleys once the Swedish troops started getting closer. Thanks to just how poor weapons muskets were at range, there's a number of times where Swedish companies, sometimes even whole battalions advanced to 50 yards or less without a single casualty(injuries yes, but not enough that anyone was out of action). Officers that could read the enemy well could be extremely good at setting the pace perfectly. The point of the tactic is essentially to be able to get close enough to where your volleys are EFFECTIVE while baiting the enemy into wasting their shots and tiring themselves out by firing at long range. And then fire a first volley anywhere from 60 to 20 yards to cause enough havoc to allow further advancing, until reaching somewhere in the 25-10 yard distance, fire a volley and charge. Because at this range, a musket volley in the face is also equal to taking a stungrenade right up your nose. Meaning that when the Swedish troops charged, they charged into a disorganised, shocked and unsteady mass of individuals with very little cooperation, coordination or even attention to what was happening at all. As an addition, it can be noted that the allotment system was a development of the older Ledung-system from the viking age, which basically that every X people or commuity had to provide Y men and Z ship(s). . The primary weakness was the lack of strategic resources. And that actually includes part of the reason for having so many pikemen. It was expensive to keep everyone with muskets, so they tried to balance it as best possible to get the most effect from the minimum cost. There was also a degree of instituitional custom involved, the 1/3 ratio was developed into an effective part of doctrine in the 16th and 17th century, despite almost everyone else using closer to 2/3 pikemen, and welltrained with good leadership, it could truly be really effective. Musket-only forces HAD also been tried and more often than not FAILED. Also, it was the final days of MASSED use of pikemen. The last intentional use of trained pikemen IIRC was in the 20th century. And they were STILL effective. And i think you gravely underestimate just how badly musketeers generally fare if charged by pikemen. Doesn't matter if they're still fresh. Because it is almost impossible to fight against something that you cannot reach at all, because the only thing getting in range is a forest of steel blades jabbing or rushing at you. . The point you need to understand about Poltava is that 2/3 of the Swedish forces never got their full orders due to the person supposed to be giving them being incapacitated before having a chance to their job, AND circumstance preventing people from finding this out. And even then, despite everything, without the bravery of ONE SINGLE Russian liuetenant in the right time and place, who rallied the men around him, the Swedish attack might still actually have worked, because most of the Swedish officers made more or less the right basic decisions despite the lack of orders, and the Russian line almost routed at at least one point, possibly as much as 3 or 4 times even. The actual orders were to simply bypass the redoubts. Had that been done, the battle would also quite possibly have ended with a Swedish win. The actual orders were to attack agressively, had that been done, the Russian soldiers would not have had the time to form up as they were surprised at the Swedes approaching, this would ALSO very likely have resulted in a Swedish victory. . Glass cannon? Really? That only holds true as long as the enemy outnumbers them 3-1 or more. Extremely bad comparison. While they were better at offense, their ability in defense was also clearly above what was normal for the day.
@@ericward8459 THEY THOUGHT I WAS TOO YOUNG TO RULE THE LAND JUST AS THEY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND BORN TO RULEEE.... MY TIME HAS COME I WAS CHOSEN BY HEAVEN! SAY MY NAME WHEN YOU PRAY TO THE SKIES SEE CAROLUS RISE!
Lots of Sabaton fans here, I anticipate. I didn’t expect you to know of them, but I guess it shouldn’t surprise. Also, Merry Christmas to you, Brandon! One more thing: your Swedish pronunciation could use some work, but is overall good. Nicely done!
+ Romans 10:9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME." In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ." Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." And please repent of all of your sins and be baptized by the Holy Spirit before it is too late, you will never know when the time will come 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you've ever been in the swedish army nowadays, and you've heard "GÅ PÅ! GÅ PÅ! GÅ PÅ!" You know the feeling of how battle fury starts pumping through your veins and that awesome adrenaline rush.
Charles XII was an inspring General but propably one the worst Statesmen in this European period. He got several announcements in the early 1700s from August of Poland and Peter of Russia to end the Great Northern war with a favourable peace treaty for Sweden. But he refused them all. He could defeat August in a long war of six years and forced him to abdict from the polish crown by occupying saxony. 1706 would be a perfect moment for a ceasefire with Peter which stood alone at this moment but Charlex made the same crucial error like many other victors at the height of their fame to beliece that his road of sucess would be without end.
Great video. Wanna add some thoughts regarding some details. 1. Though large on the map, huge portions of Sweden wasn't Swedish in the sense that Swedish laws applied and so large areas around the Baltic Sea wasn't part of the new alotment system. Hade they been, then if course a larger army could have been raised. 2. While manpower was a problem, the Great Northern war took so many years, young boys would have time to grow up. What really drained the resources was a stagnant economy and years of poor harvests and such. Once the king went on campaign, it became increasingly difficult to maintain the rule of Sweden. 3. The death of the king, the diplomatic isolation, the various states that kept aiding with the enemy, and the poor state of the economy broke the Swedish empire. It's armies however we're not spent or defeated. Nor was the victory of Russia and its allies, a total victory. While popular perception says it was a bitter and hard peace, in reality, the terms for Sweden were extraordinary good for a loosing part. The conclusion being that Sweden shifted from empire due to political will to do so, not because it was actually broken. Also due to later development the strength of Russia is often over exadurated. Poland of course was broken for real and would in a few decades sease to exist. Denmark gained nothing. Sweden also maintained a lot of unique rights in its former territories now belonging to Russia, areas the Russians had ransacked into oblivion making them rather useless. In the long run, granting Russia ports and opportunity for naval rivalry would be the actual long term significant disadvantage to Swedish ambitions.
What they do have is this bunch of auxiliary cossacks and others. Mercenaries are starting to go out of style at the time, the central powers of Europe don't like having independent condottieri armies rolling around. But they are still a normal feature of war.
Less applicable to this tactic, fortresses. The field army of Carolus really seems to hate siege situations. Forts are built differently in the early modern period. They aren't dotted around the landscape, they are built along the borders of the growing central states. They are lower and sloped, and built to withstand gunpowder weapons. Outlying bastions support one another and try to place advancing soldiers in crossfire. This tactic to push forward against the nearest enemy can get confused. There's moments when units fail to bypass outlying posts or file into a breach, and just end up in contact with strongpoints. Units can get lost and confused and distracted.
Fans of the Caroleans probably wouldn't want to hear this, but Ga-Pa reminds me a lot of the Highland Charge used by Jacobite armies around the same time period, complete with the early upset victories and the eventual defeat after the momentum of the charge got broken up by an enemy that utilized a defense-in-depth with multiple lines.
I am happy to finaly see you make a video about the caroleans(karolinerna as its in swedish). Im part of a big carolean reenactment group in sweden, and though its in swedish i do have some videos on my chanel about the uniforms and how the caroleans marsched and attacked during war. Its not perfect(and in my opinion perfect is the most inperfect word) but i think it would do a litle good IF you ever think of taking up the swedish army on your chanel again. Also just to make it clear, i know the guys standing on the scene with sabaton and should myself been there but was not able to go with my brothers on arms. Best regards en svensk karolin(a swedish carolean) Ps. If you do want to make more videos about the caroleans feel free to ask, reading about the carolean army is one of my hobbies.
What's cool abt the community supplying the soldier's equipment is that the community would be more likely to send the best food and equipment they could as a matter of pride. No one would want their son to be ill fed or under equipped when standing ranks
You're pronouncing "Gå-på" surprisingly well actually. I expected you'd just ignore the ring above the a and just pronounce it "ga pa" (like english speaking people usually do. Yes, I'm looking at you Motörhead), but you didn't. Bravo.
Well, to nitpick, on Motörhead the the umlaut is there just for aesthetics, it's supposed to be pronounced just as "motorhead". There's interviews where the bandmembers recount how it was odd when they went to play in Germany (IIRC) back in their early days and the crowds were chanting the band's name as it was written. :D
@@MosoKaiser I know it was pure aesthetics. That's the problem really. Brits and Americans tend to think you can just stick dots here and there and expect it would be pronounced just the same anyway.
@@jockeberg4089 well dont we do the same with other languages. I often find myself butchering German ü and ß for example before i can stop my self Or czech, I was a bit shocked when i discovered škoda is pronounced something like shkådda. Not sk-ooda. So my thick northern dialect (shkååda) got closer than my standard swedish take on the brand name.
Im a simple swede, I see my boys in blue I like and subscribe! Now but seriously, great video! One thing you did left out was the religious mindset. Basicly, the mindset was that it was already decided by God if you lived or died. This is more a speculation on my part but I belive that there is two other reasons why the carolean style of warfare didnt "catch on" in addition to what you mention about manpower and substance over mass. A) The style never had an heir to inherit the system naturaly. When Charles XII died hes war ended, it was done. His commanders didnt go on and wrote their memoares and sush or became famous in their day, the experianced officer corps simply died off ,either in battle or fell into obscurity after the wars... B) "Not a european war". the GNW was not really seen as a european war, it was either fought in the way up north of scandinavia or in the far east of Russia, both considered kind backwaters by the main european great nations, such as Great Britain and France for example. Again, great video! would love to see more of you on this topic, you create amazing quality content! Sorry for the long post!
Most probably a Swedish bullet. Karl XII hadn't been in Sweden for years and his wars to keep the Russians out had costed the country dearly. With the king out of the way, the door was open for conspirations. He was the last king with absolute power and one can say that a new era started with his death. Sweden was never militarized again to the same degree as under the Carolins. But he, his father and his grandfather did great things, too! They modernized Sweden and pulled the country out of the feudal grip of the old nobelity. I think it's a mistake to ignore this time in our history, as the political left does. As a matter of fact, at the end of time, in ragnarök, when all is accounted for, the Carolins had a greater impact on our country than any socialist ever had. That's for sure!
@@keepermovin5906 Bro, we're talking 1718. Blunderbuss, with round bullets made right there in the battlefield xD Imagine being that guy spending another extra 30 minutes trying to "stamp" a flag on that bullet. Friends would def shoot you right there.
Or perhaps, only bite off as much as you can chew.....then settle it and multiply upon it. Then another bite. Oddly it usually happens the way it did with Russia itself. Ivan the Terrible - nasty as he was - ended up expanding Russia's territory muchly in defensive wars. If the Swedes had stuck to controlling the North and not being sucked South....they might be speaking Swedish in St. Carolsburg (well they wouldn't call it St. Petersburg would they?). As well as Peter the Great said they were being taught the art of war by the Swedes.... Russia can be taken but it would require the Mongols' technique of swiftly taking off the head of the leadership in Moscow then doing what they did not - settle it with your own people. Swedes *were* attacked first by the Russians anyways so poor Swedes were only fighting back. The Danes, Poles and Russians attacked them and Carolus Rex settled the Danes and Poles and then didn't quite settle the Russkies...... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Us2ylGAwBnk.html&ab_channel=Piscator
Wonderful that non-swedes take an intrest in our historic, but relatively short lived period as a super power. Thank you for taking the time to make this video ! Ps Gå-På is accualy rather easy to pronounce. It's like Go-pro minus the R ( Go-po) or ( Go-poe)!
I grew up listening to my Morfar tell stories of our ancestors. Our people helped Gustav Vasa in 1520. This is commemorated in the Vasa Loppet held in Mora, Dalarna.
Thank you! I've heard that the Swedes use of swift movement of light artillery was also a big changer on the battlefield. Or maybe that was Karl X or even earlier?
Gustavus Adolphus had that. Karl XII (aka "Charlus XII" or Carolus Rex) was more a guy who looked at artillery with some contempt. He didn't even use the artillery that he had brought with him to Poltava despite he did have the option to do so. And that did cost the Swedish army dearly.
@@josephpeck8723 The Thousand Names (The Shadow Campaigns #1) by Django Wexler, Guns of the Dawn Book by Adrian Tchaikovsky, and the Powdermage Trilogy are all great.
Thank you, young man, for delivering this lecture on the Carolean army. I am Swedish. My Carolean ancestors would be very proud of themselves, as you seem to hold them in high esteem.
Longtime lurker. Could you do a episode of the "Hakkapeliitta" who fought for the Swedish king "Gustavus Adolphus the Great". the wikipedia page needs more flesh on it's bone. Greetings from Finland
From what I understand, they're not special like people often think. I think they're just a name for Finnish Light Cavalry, no different to their Swedish counterparts.
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 Yes, its literally just a nickname for the Finnish cav regiments based on a warcry common among the finnish horsemen. Not even sure if its a contemporary nickname or something that comes along later.
I was one of those that requested this from you and I must say that you covered this well. very interesting to look at the tactical necessity that came from having such a small population. Something that is not told so much in comparison to the success of the Caroleans.
You are a farmer from God knows where, called into service. You meet some pretty interesting people in training and they become your best friends after camping and marching for weeks. Finally a battle. Enemy advancing and your line fires a volley, but they don't stop marching. In a hurry you reload. Before you can fire again the enemy line stops and fires, your friend left of you drops dead. Again you aim and as you look down the side of the barrel the enemy is marching, getting closer. You fire in fear. The enemy stops again right in front of you and fires. Confusion and panic sets in as you can't see anything and then out of the smoke you hear screaming in a language you don't understand. Out of the mist launches a man with a sword.
I think Military History Visualized said it well. "If infantry can not maintain the balance of Firepower and Shockpower, then they have failed in the versatility that is necessary of the Infantry." Really great video. I appreciate videos like this as it really is informative for authors like me and many others put there. Thank you
Great video. I'm part Polish, so I have to tip my hat to the army that destroyed one the Polish empire and made a Swedish empire. The Great Northern War reminds me nothing so much of the Second Punic War. Speed and shock just can't win an endurance contest against numbers, organization, and depth.
The only reason the glorious Swedish empire collapsed was due to the small population compared to it's seize. Try yo change my mind (Russians will hate on me)
Team Gunnar Reknoztravs i agree from a totaly unbiased swedish opinion. The russians could afford to lose the big battle at Narva and mass up forces again but when sweden lost at poltava we didint have the man power or resources to replace it with.
And I would argue that the strategies of Charles were also largely to blame. Had he focused on reclaiming his Baltic territories and pushed inland from there he could have maintained supply routes much better and would have been attacking lands much more important to the Russian economy, he might even have been able to push as far as Novgorod and at that point might have been able to negotiate favourable peace terms for it's release.
Swedish culture is submissive. Russian culture is dominating. That's why the Mongols who controlled 70% of Russia, collapsed and are the small country they are today. (and a Pro-Russian state as of 2020)
Very informative video!!! It's interesting to hear about the cavalry, as winged hussars fought in a similar tight formation. Inspiration possible as 17th century is packed with wars between Sweden and PLC.
When you're in a great big unit, you all have eyes on you. If I abandon my place in plain sight, all the guys around me will see me do that. Including any underofficer, who has the power to shoot me for doing so. Regiments are at their most vulnerable during a route though. Part of veterancy seems to be understanding that you are safer moving forward. It's crap and people shoot at you, but it beats having cavalry run you over from behind.
I think it should be noted that the Swedes gave battle at Poltava knowing they were at a severe disadvantage because they were desperate. They had run out of supplies and were relying on a resupply from the Cossacks that never came. This, combined with scorched earth tactics, meant the men were dying of sickness and were weak from starvation. This just worsens the issue of tiredness and fatigue that comes from the charges.
This is an excellenct video, and I just want to add to little things. 1. On a tactical level, the Caroleans had a problem that they never really trained how to break contact, retreat and regroup. It was 100% offensive., with no defensive options in the book. We, the Swedes, back then were insane religious fanatics, and the priests taught the soldiers that God had already decided if they live or die, so ducking in fear would make no difference. (Side note: Priests also were part of the line during battle, and even today Sweden is sort of unusual and a bit controversial that our Field Chaplains are armed as any other soldier, instead of having bodyguards.) So basically we just ran our forces against the defences in Poltava until we lost, and then we made a really, really bad retreat which cost us a lot of forces. 2. There are some accounts that the new tactics was to fire the first volley at 25 paces, and the second should be "within bayonette range". I don't know if that is meant literally, but if so that would be a insane suprise for any enemy line preparing to fend of a bayonette charge.
Swedish soldiers were not "religious fanatics" more than any other soldiers during this time period, or at least there are no such proof. The reason the Swedes were able to pull off the same aggresive tactic repeatedly was because they were confident in victory. Later during the war the Swedes started losing, not because they all of a sudden stopped being "religious fanatics" (which they never were), but because they became less confident in victory. Also the retreat from Poltava to Perevolochna was done in quite orderly fashion.
@@xifel72 I've read a lot of books about the war; you'll find religious motives for ANY army during this time, not just the Carolean one (just read about the Russian army and you'll be surprised). The Swedes being aggressive had little to do with god; it was decided upon and practiced in their infantry regulations. So, well-drilled soldiers with a "tradition to win" allowed them great success on the battlefield. Of course religious motives played a part, but there wasn't any huge differences between Caroleans and any other religious armies at the time.
Using pikes as tool of aggression was invention of Gustavus Adolphus. He shrunk the size of typical pike and shot tercio and increased the musket to pike ratio. Muskets were there to unleash one or two volleys to disrupt the enemy formations before the pike charged in. So basically Caroleans used the tactics developed 100 years earlier by the greatest military genius of the early modern times.
I’m happy to see this topic covered. People seem to assume the Swedes went to poop almost immediately after Gustavus Adolphus, with the exception of Karl XII (o! the irony!) Also, Merry Christmas!
@Pasha Staravoitau To me it sounds a lot like how other european empires end. A bunch of neighbours start to see that someone is tipping the balance of power, and agree that these guys needs to be taken down a peg. Sweden ends up on the giving end in these arrangements as well. When it's time to take down Napoleon a peg, there's swedish units fighting his allies in Germany. Gustavus Adolphus gets bankrolled from France to keep fighting in Germany.
The death of Gustavus Adolphus is a setback but not a disaster. His death is more like a freak accident, the monarch and his guards gets lost and killed but the field army itself is still intact and actually wins the battle. This shows in the negotiations after the war in Germany, where Sweden can improve their hold of the baltic sea. The swedish administration of the time is built to function without the monarch. It's weird and corrupt compared to modern times, but for the time it's working pretty well. Gustavus (and later kings) can spend all this time with the field army because they know the administration back home can run things without weird stuff happening at court. Charles XII stretches this capacity. When he's in Turkey trying to get loans and allied troops, the swedish military compound he stays in is functionally the center of government. And having the center of government in Turkey and the administration in Stockholm can only work for so long.
Unfortunately, this misconception is held by many. Especially those who favor the Spanish and the Catholic Habsburgs during the Thirty Years' War. They usually assume that after Gustav's death at Lützen and the Spanish-Imperial victory at Nördlingen, Sweden backed out of the war (which isn't true). Sweden still participated and achieved victories against the Habsburgs although the main focus of TYW historiography is now on France. After the war, Sweden gained a significant amount of German territory and other territories across the Baltic Sea and was in a better position than it was before the TYW.
At this time, the powers of Europe are building forts. They have been learning to build forts designed for modern firepower through the entire early modern period. Sloped walls that deflect cannonballs, how to dig trenches, star-shaped bastions that add supporting firepower to eachother, fortifications to funnel assaulting units into the right fire zones. How to fortify cities and take them is an important part of war. The nation-states don't want a return to the pre-modern way where tiny nobles sit in little stone keeps and make demands of the crown, but lines of forts along the borders start to grow up. There is downsides with gå på. There's battles where swedes encounter a set of tiny little forward bastions and get bogged down trying to assault them instead of going around, or when units flanking them just stand around taking potshots as the swedes keep going forward. Or when the swedes think they are making a breach, when they're really just throwing people into a firezone. If you have 10.000 people ordered to gå på, how do you tell them to stop doing it, sort of.
Great video and breakdown. Your analysis of their strengths and weaknesses is impressive, as well as your noting the general tactics employed and variations thereof were especially helpful. Thank you. Merry Christmas, sir.
Peter Englund's Poltava is a visceral description of the decisive Carolean defeat. He states (this is not the literal quote as I don't hjave the book at hand at the moment, but this is the basic wording: "During the period it was said: whoever slays a pikeman spills innocent blood".
@@BrandonF I don't know how many of the books have been translated to english, but my uncle, Gunnar Artéus has written several books on Swedish military history of the time period in question here, including his mil. doctorate works on Carl XII
A lovely Christmas present! Really in depth and well made, the Caroleans are a force I've studied for a while. Trying to do their tactics in strategy games like Empire TW are pretty tricky, no doubt would had been very hard back then in real life. As it goes, plans fall apart at first contact with the enemy. Merry Christmas!
