Why did the Swedish Empire Collapse? 

Can you do a video about the 7 Years War? Its super glossed over, there is only like 4 or 5 vidoes on it and none of them are good, its like pre-WW with really important people

@@serkan6036 It's planned for 2022

@@Knowledgia phew, if you say your gonna do it, then its guranteed that it will happen and that its gonna be one hell of a vidoe so thank you :)

What if a Time-traveler Industrialized Norway on 872? Would the Norwegian Empire be a thing?

@@vardekpetrovic9716 Could Industrialization at the earliest point in Swedish history save the empire?

Yes, it literally broke Commonwealth and it never recovered. It was as destructive as 30 Years War for HRE. A phyrric victory if there ever was one.

What a fun little fact.

Mass killings is such a fun fact... /The Swedish Flood is the proper translation.

That concurs of what I read in the book 'Poland' by James Michener. Previous to reading that I used to think the Swedes were allies of Poland.

Fun..

Based

So, if you want to learn more about the Polish 15-17th centuries, don't go to Poland - go to Sweden.

@@Leaffordes I believe that many of these treasures are already hidden somewhere in Switzerland... But that was a good one though :-)

Yea and polish still look up to west Europe for everything especially mentality, unfortunately Poland will be trash until they figure out who they are, sad how no matter what, everyone ends up just stabbing Poland in the back, I can’t imagine how much it sucks to be polish

Maybe you shouldn't declare war if you can't handle it after all

That’s Dutch.

@@ddc2957 Ikea isn't dutch

Swedistan*

IKEA is Dutch today.

And they use meatballs, not cannonballs. 😄

In the west maybe lmao

"that many dont know about" what

@@Frullen that's right. Most people are only educated about the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Dutch empires because they are the ones who built the most competent navies and acquired the vast majority of the New World as well as much of Africa and Asia. Sweden and Poland did no such thing so most people outside of central Europe or Scandinavia know nothing about them unless they are history buffs who delve deeper into European military history such as what I have.

@@winnienguyen4420 most people in general barely know any empire, but on the internet and within this certain section both empires, especially poland are well known

The reason: Russia.

The Empire would be incomplete... you'd find parts left over

If only they could figure out how to put it all together.

Serfdom was probably less of an issue in Sweden and Finland because the Agricultural opportunities up there were far fewer.

@@anthonytillman6363 Agriculture was the basis of everything up here as well. We just never had serfdom or feudalism really.

The Swedish kings didn't get rid of feudalism in Livonia because they didn't want to rock the boat. It would piss off the Baltic-German nobility majorly. Eventually they were pissed off with the reduction and that led to the Great Northern War and Sweden's destruction. Russia also granted the Baltic-Germans special privileges and didn't incorporate the province until around 1900.

@@fips711 Before Karl XI and his regin. Livonia asked to be integrated in Sweden 3 times probably so they could be able to send representatives to the swedish parlament (ståndsriksdagen) at that time which only Sweden and Finland was allowed to do. When Karl XI gained power 1680 and 1682 so he cpuld be an absolute monarch he wanted to integrate these provinces to strengthen the crown and state and weaken the nobilty in the process. In the old Sweden he was able to take alot of land from the nobilty to fund a new army later known as Caroleans. In the baltics german nobilty was pissed because of the reason that they have been nobilty in livonia longer than sweden had been there and that is why Patkul is famous and so on. The nobilty itself was afraid of the Swedish king and his army. So when Patkul fled they more or less abandon his ideas. My source is a Swedish book called Den Glömda Historien by John Chrispinsson and the chapter about Riga and Livonia. Which mention this facts

@@SSK-mp4cz I don't think we are disagreeing with anything. Sweden wanted to get rid of serfdom, but the Baltic Germans wanted to keep it, the issue was never solved. And yes, the nobles completely sided with Sweden when it came to war. When Patkul returned with the Saxon army, he was surprised that no one supported his schemes and everyone would rather stay loyal to Sweden than risk falling under Russia. They didn't give a damn about the reduction anymore.

Sweden today has a woke govt , massive taxes and a hyper liberal agenda. Good luck keeping your " Freedoms"

I don't think anyone was wondering that

@@changedpace9169 Keep in mind that people tend to have wildly different perspectives on life.

@@changedpace9169😂😂😂

In year 1500 things looked like this: France - 16,250,000 people. England - 2,750,000 people. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1500 Now I ask you which country did become the leading world power? Do we hold this discussion in French or in English? Is the worlds largest super-power USA speaking French or English? I think its quite clear that England won the historical struggle for world dominance over its neighbour, despite it had a population that was 6 times larger. So saying that Sweden was doomed to fail is stupid. Its as stupid as saying England could never conquer the world. But yet it happened. You can say it was only because of luck. And perhaps that is true. But that doesn't change the fact that it happened - England did become the leading world power.

@@nattygsbord I ask you did England conquer anything on the European continent like Sweden tried to do? Germany? The Baltic states? Russia? Poland? No, England became an overseas world power. It conquered countries like Amerivca and India that were not a match for firearms.

@@nattygsbord Moreover, English is a Germanic language like Swedish, because England itself was conquered. We have this discussion in a language not originating from England.

@@nattygsbord Its easier to defend your homeland against a bigger threat when you have the geography on your side, aka, being an island. Thats also the reason why the US became the global power of our era. Literally they cant be invaded because they are sandwiched between 2 oceans and 2 friendly countries.

@@1020Lester The reason England became great was because the country accepted the Bible, which calls for righteousness. One can find fault, but when one realizes that their aims, at least in enough people, Christians, was to get people to come to Christ, which changed lives for the good, one can understand more. I cannot understand why people want to be heathens, when the history of heathens is much more violent than the history of Christians. As for countries, there is usually a "better" one in wars. The one for the good from tyranny. But then, good rulers turn to tyrants usually, because people are warlike, when they get persecuted in some way, and the wars start again. Endless cycle, until after judgement, heaven or hell, for eternity. It's the only way it ends. The Bible has all your answers, especially the New Testament. Don't expect everyone to live it, they won't. But you or anyone else can. The only thing you can't be forced to do is become a true Christian. Freedom to choose. Don't persecute Christians, you're hurting yourself. When Christians are allowed freedom, your govt will allow you freedom. Better for all. God puts it in people who are not Christians to go to places that Christians cannot go without those people. Even though the non Christians were doing much wickedness, the true Christians were doing good. When one always does good, then they can find fault with true Christians. Otherwise, if one complains about the true Christians, that one is (un)just a hypocrite. Yet, it seems, if one can complain about other hypocrites, in their eyes, it doesn't seem to stop them from being hypocrites themselves. Only Christ sets one free from such boorish, and worse behavior. God is love, and also a perfect Father. Many find fault with the Bible, but not themselves. Like that does them good. God cares. Seek Him while He may be found of you. All it takes is a heartcry for deliverance from wickedness. It is found in Christ alone. Look what He did for us. And He forgives.

Sweden is currently dying.

@@amjan what does that even mean lol

We did have Karl XI father of Karl XII and he was probably the best king Sweden has ever had to this date. Sadly he died of cancer only 41 years old in 1697 it was way to early and the consort government after his death made a fatal mistake when they proclaimed Karl XII king when his was only 15 years old. The famine in todays Estonia and Finland under the 1690s was a another disaster for Sweden at that time

@@gulapa8920 Are you not aware of Sweden’s sorry state? It is dying, literally and figuratively. They might be a good example of being too compassionate.

Sweden in the 17th Century was awesome and had one of the greatest armies in Europe. Nowadays all they are known for is that annoying little Greta Thunberg girl that everyone makes fun of. Such a fall from grace.

Yeah really an unfair way of portraying her here, she always had a plan to do whats best for the country and it was her choice to let Charles X be king.

It might be, but there‘s still the fact that she spent ALOT of money and nearly made the country gi bancrupt

She was young. Too young to be understand how the world works and being a good ruler. Understandibly did she want to end the war in Germany that had caused so much death and suffering for 30 years. Her mother was a German, so of course she was extra much anti-war. But Christina was a stupid girl that thought that peace at any cost was a good idea. But the strongest man in the Swedish government - Axel Oxenstierna knew very well that this was just nonsense. And in the end he got his will through, despite Christinas attempts to change course of the foreign policy. And thankfully did Sweden end up winning the war, and avoid bankruptcy (as the loser Austria paid for the war) and religious freedom in Europe was secured thanks to Sweden. German states now no longer had to follow their emperors faith. And Sweden won land and permanent political influence and became recognized as a Great power in Europe with one of the most dangerous armies. Christina probably realized that she had been wrong about her foreign policy. He also wasted lots of money by privatizing the state apparatus and wasting money on parties and luxuries. She ruined the country. And is worthy of contempt for it. The only kind thing I have to say about her, is that she was young and dumb. But on the other hand was many other Kings excellent rulers when they were in their early 20s - like Gustav I, Gustavus Adolphus and Carolus Rex. She probably realized that her handling of the economy had brought the country towards ruin, and that her ideas of foreign policy had been a failure. So its understandable that she felt like she felt when she said that "no woman is suitable to be ruler". I feel pity for her when she felt so inadequate, and that she felt guilt and shame over her gender. Personally I do think that this statement is just nonense, and that many women are smart and have the potential to be excellent rulers. But it is understandable that she felt sad and worthless and finally did end up buying into the ideas of men in the 1600s who truely believed women to be inferior. A sad fate of life.

Funny how a single girl can fuck over an empire so hard.

@Leo the British-Filipino which is really weird considering she was a traitor and the worst ruler ever

Kim Jong-ay, just nuke 'm ☢

Great one bud 😂

Yes, but you do get some meatballs for dinner.

@@xdanbo1859 with a side of Kalles Kaviar 🍥

Yeah I totally agree. The population wasn’t big, the economy wasn’t reliable enough and so on.

Yeah, one cannot understate how much of the Swedish rise to power in 1600s was due to massive polish loot and even larger French war chest. Also, once the age of mercenaries was over and Europe switched to national, standing armies the disparity further grew.

The lack of its colonial success cannot be understated either, nations with poor resources at home where successful thanks to their holdings overseas. Great example the Dutch republic, a nation much smaller in size resources and population while fighting for their independence. The difference in the end was Swedish aim to be a military power instead of a maritime one. A military power requires a contentious stream of manpower which small nations cant afford, plus brings with it huge expanses unless you mange to win enough, which generally meant sacrifice of more manpower. A maritime power required less manpower and trough overseas occupations highly profitable. Main recourse required for maritime powers is wood, something the Swedish didn't lack and sold off in large amounts to others including the Dutch whom themselves lacked it, same for Swedish steel, was bought in large amount by the dutch to forge their ship cannons. If Swedish Empire would have gone the way the Dutch Republic did, it might have ended up overshadowing them. Lets be honest their ancestors where vikings by thor. Them going as a maritime power would literally have been the most sensible thing to do as oppose to picking fights with those around them pick them with those overseas, much harder to get hit back that way. And trough the trade you could keep your neighbors happier, that and not trying to keep invading their shit helps to towards friendly relations... just saying. My conclusion, the fault lies squarely on the nonsensical move to try and become a military power over an maritime one, considering resources at disposal the limitation of manpower, and a history of shipbuilding.

Thanks really Interesting

@@MrFosite I think Sweden couldn't become a naval power. It was far too limited in geography, population and wealth. For one, they were pretty much confined to Baltic by the Danish. Then low population means no internal market (unlike all major maritime powers), no manpower to spare on very deadly colonial ventures, geography also meant poor access to external markets. Then comes the issue of immense cash drain that colonial companies were. Dutch and English were wealthy, Sweden was dirt poor compared to great powers. Also it's not like they didnt try to be at least regional naval power, buy they got outclassed by other powers on the sea, even by nascent russian navy. TBH the outcome they ended up with is probably for the best for swedish nation. They still benefitted greatly from European colonialism and industrial revolution.

We don't hate Denmark for real though (except when we play football against each other). The Danes are our brothers and sisters and we are very close culturally, economically and politically.

@Grudon 57 Because F*ck Em... That's Why 😶... 💯🤘🏻

and muslims

@@virreification I don't hate Denmark even when we play football against each other, i only hate them if they try to attack us agian like they have done many times in history XD. But i trust them as brothers so no i never hate them at all.

I mainly know Sweden for being a muslim country where in 2100 the country won't even be swedish anymore lol. No okay I also know their king has french origins.

People like to talk about what is just recent, and think that the world have always been like this. Armchair historian and such history channels only talk about world war 2 nowadays and ignore rest of western history.

Legacy please? Any?

@@corradomancini3271 Russia was created by Swedish Vikings and later when they became Christians they started using the Bulgarian alphabet o the so called Cyrillic alphabet. Ancient Bulgarian or the so called Old church slavonic became lingua franca for the orthodox slavs and Romanians. This is a legacy for me. Eastern Europe was heavily influenced by our empires but at different moments in time.

@André Filipe Oliveira You know that the world didn't start at 1500.

pretty sure the Swedish Empire is more known than the 2 Bulgarian empire

That was what caused her to leave the Swedish throne.

@@michaelalbertson7457 U don’t say. It was the final drop, after already being hated by the people, nobles and the clergy. I’m Swedish so I know the history well

@@ompwa5382 Yeah, I guess I stated the obvious. I'm of Swedish descent, from around the Arctic Circle, so we're probably more Finn than Swede. Most of, if not all, my grandparents friends were Finns in the U.S., but they spoke both languages. I read up on Swedish and Finnish history to some extent.

@@michaelalbertson7457 That’s awesome. Tho, Finland=eastern Sweden

@@ompwa5382 Used to be, but Finns have something that others don't claim to have, at least to the extent of what the Finns claim, and that is sisu. Made quite a nation for themselves, they did. But Sweden 🇸🇪 almost always had better tennis players, except when Nieminen 🇫🇮 was playing 🎾. 😄

i thought I didn’t read it, Hitler’s invasion ? Hitler’s invasion of Russia is what destroyed him, 80% of Germany’s casualties came at the hands of the Soviets, Hitler can’t be compared to Napoleon or Charles

Nice empire bro *sails away with ur valuables* 🇬🇧 🛶

*dying by laughing in Russian*

@@tellurius4951 laughing in *Loosing with 4x amount of troops*

@@oriongabriel6966 in 1743 you lost another war and lost 3000 more soldiers than we. Sit down again

@@tellurius4951 that wasnt the great northern war it doesn’t count. We where the assholes in that war so I do not care too much about us losing that one

Sweden served God's purpose in the 30 Years' War, of ending the power of the (Un)holy Roman Empire with its' false doctrines and grievous policies of lying to and robbing the common people, keeping them poor and enslaved to the church, made to think that was the way to heaven. God had used the RCC to introduce Christianity to the European nations, but their time was over when Luther posted 95, not 5, not 10, but 95 grievances against what the Bible said, or not even in the Bible, used by the RCC. Yet God allowed Russia to defeat Sweden. The only reason I can think of is no one in Europe could beat Nazi Germany. Sweden would not have been able to. God foresaw that.

Well, it's pretty much all forests and coastline, what's so bad about it?

It's ok, but definitely not as good as say England or Holland.

Poland, Germany and Denmark all had more fishers and merchant ship sailors than Sweden in the 1300s and 1500s. So it is quite remarable that Sweden with its total lack of any maritime tradition was able to compete with any of those countries, let alone defeat them at war at sea. But yet it all happened. To everyones surprise did Sweden manage to build a strong fleet. And not only that. It managed to crush all the others and get dominance in the Baltic sea. At some points in history did Sweden have the largest navy in Europe!

@@nattygsbordI had always read that the three best naval powers were the Venicians during the 1400s, the Spanish Armada during the 1500s, then the Dutch through the 1600s, and the English beginning in the mid 1600s but eclipsing by 1700 and eventually becoming the most powerful navy on earth up until after WW2.

@@fanbuoy9234 Because Denmark can block their ships from going into the Atlantic whenever they want. That isn't a good place to be in if you want colonies. That's why countries like Portugal, Spain, France, and England were the ones to form the most colonies because they were already on the Atlantic to begin with.

This is not the first time I’ve seen these issues with their videos, along with several things pronounced incorrectly (not in this video but many others). I don’t know how much longer I will remain subscribed

@@Barbossa778 I haven't really thought about noticing these kind of mistakes this often before, but then again I am a swede who is very interested in Swedish history. But now that I saw all of these mistakes I honestly think that maybe I soon will have to unsubscibe aswell. And with the dislike having been removed (thanks a lot RU-vid u suck) u can't really voice your disappointment with the video and that it was poorly researched and done

@@renfors3931 buddy you can still dislike. They’ll see it we just cant see it.😀

@@renfors3931 You are doing the lord's work. 🙏 🙏 🙏

Also, the dislike button does work with browser extension, however nothing feasible for seeing dislikes on the phone or xbox etc.

Ok?

Greenland and Iceland.

@@zyanego3170 Yes actually more than Sweden they had colonies in Caribbean, Africa and Indian ocean also for a fairly long time like the Virgin islands from 1672-1917.

Yes quite a few

Depends, the Swedes had many advantages in infraestructure, polictics, that whould had maden many people of the baltics lifes better, and yes, I know about the serfdom, but lately, it whould had been better.

Sadly the video contains many misstakes in that exact part of the video, so you should probably look up other videos to know how it actually happened then! Its actually very exciting

Sweden took Moscow in 1610. And Sweden had been winning a war against Russia non-stop for 9 years during the Great Northern war - something which cannot be said about others. And this is also while Sweden stood alone against Denmark, Poland, Saxony and Russia.

@@nattygsbord May be too much computer games or alternative history for you. In reality in 1610 Poles were in the Kremlin, not Swedes. And even them, they didn't "take" it, but were officially invited by the Russian boyars and marched in. That was their historic chance to rule Russia, but they screwed up and were ejected in 1612. I never said that Swedes were not great warriors, take it easy. However their march on Moscow didn't go further than Poltava.

@@Simon-d 12 of march did the Swedish troops march into the city and the Tsar Vasilj welcomed the Swedish troops and the population of Moscow celebrated the arrival of Swedish troops. And in the next year was Novgorod also taken by Swedish troops. The war in Russia was a half-assed military adventure, and the Swedes did not expect to have as much success as they did. Had Sweden put more effort into it, then there would have been a high likelyhood that a Swedish King would have been put on the Russian throne. A faction in the Russian civil war did openly support the idea. Gustavus Adolphus brother Filip was suggested to become the new Russian Tsar. But the boy was very young and his mother was very worried about him and prevented him from travel to Russia, and the terrified boy was probably not yet used for the idea either. This window of oppurtunity was short-lived, and soon the peace negotiations with Russia broke down. Sweden did conquer some important land from Russia, but did not get as much out from the peace deal as it could have done in earlier peace talks when it was suggested that Filip would become King of Russia and Sweden gained even more land than just Ingria and Kexholm county. Had Filip become King of Russia I guess it would not have changed much. The country was at chaos. And Filips mother was probably right when she said that it was barbaric and dangerous. The young boy would probably have been killed. So no big loss there. Even if Swedish vikings (Rus) created Russia do I think that religious and cultural differences would have made it a country too difficult to run for Swedish King. Especially for a 9 year old boy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Philip,_Duke_of_S%C3%B6dermanland

@@nattygsbord I still think you are confused. The article you linked is about a guy who was proposed by Swedes to Novgorod, an important, yet provincial city. The capital city was Moscow (I hope you know) and that's where the Poles were in charge at the time.

Where is the Danish empire in history though? oooof! XD

@@octodaddy4494 can we say the north sea empire counts?

Sweden was lucky. Both Russia and Denmark have had crappy leaders throughout history

And he ended up shot in the head with his kingdom unraveling, not exactly the smartest guy around

He litterly was the one who kept Sweden not being danish russian today, hes not smart, he was brilliant

@@Pannkakaize or he could've, you know not ran his country into death by refusing to sign peace?

@@axrah8406 wasent economicly weak as you think

@@Pannkakaize I believe I have read somewhere, that Charles XII of Sweden was a brilliant military commander and strategist but perhaps not be best of kings, since military life was his only passion. The Council of The State had to try to keep the country functioning, while Charles was out there on the battlefields - having the greatest time of his life, while emptying the war chest.

Not funny!

Now Kingdom of Kaliningrad🗜

Prussia was one of the kingdoms gived born to germany. There were like 50 kingdoms too

so why are you still scared of Winged Hussars? hahahahaa

@@hussar843 That is news to me, Swedish history do not even mention them. Have Poland won a single war they declared alone and finished alone in all of history?

Easy come, easy go. 😉

Well, it was the anti-swedish coalatition thst declared war on sweden. The danish and polish struck first.

@@oriongabriel6966 Exactly, if Sweden didn't have so many enemies there wouldn't be a significant "anti-swedish coalition"

@@Bubajumba Back then, everybody was keeping a close eye on everybody to make sure, that ONE particular nation wouldn't suddenly stand out and become too dominant and powerful in the region. A certain balance had to be maintained, in the eyes of the great powers. And Sweden was at that time being seen as a major threat to the stability in the Baltic region. Thus alliances were formed against Sweden, and war was being declared. Not quite unlike like today, when Russia decides to invade Ukraine, and Europe, the UK and the USA then form an alliance and subsequently "declares war" (in the form of heavy economic sanctions, and military aid to Ukraine) against the Putin regime.

They weren't overextended, atleast not yet. And its pretty much impossible to not make enemies with nations that surround you and want your land.

@@reneblom2160 The balance of power partly didn't exist yet, alltough i say "partly" because it mainly only existed between the powers of France Austria Spain and England at that time.

"Shit happened which led to the collapse". There - I have just improved your PHD thesis.