Talk:Great Northern War

message: Info was removed by Skäpperöd, 19 Jan 2010. I don't know why he did that. Poland was neutral at this point. See e.g. 
http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C18/gnw.htm
"Initially when the war started Augustus of Saxony determined to just participate in the war as head of Saxony only. He did not enjoy the support of the Poles and Lithuanians for his war. So during the 1700 the Saxon army was based and operated in neutral Poland in its campaign against the Swedes. Understandably a situation that could cause some problems which indeed it proved so to do. For following the successful elimination of Denmark from the war and the battle of Narva in 1700 the Swedes turned to knocking Saxony out of the war. Unfortunately this meant invading Poland as that was where the Saxon army was. "
szopen 77.115.121.252 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So the war with Poland started 1701? At least according to "Sveriges Krig 1448-1630" it did / Imonoz (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Poland

message: First it says "Sweden had one of the most prfessional armies on the continent" then it says "Sweden did not have good equipment or training" isn't that a bit strange? I mean how could the army be proffesionall without good training?
Ohkay. Just tell me. No Finns involved, no terrain that is subsequently considered Finnish terrain???
There was no Finland back then, it was just a part of Sweden as any other of the lands of Sweden!
Was Poland officially (At elast initially) involved? I'read many times that Augustus started the war to make his power in Poland stronger, but since he had no right to do it on behalf on Poland, then technically (at least initially) Poland was not belligerent  and many nobles actually believed in it which had catastrophical consequences. 
I won;t make any changes on artilce sicne i am not sure on this, but can someone answer this ?Szopen 14:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, when Poland was involved? The war started without Poland - Poland was officially neutral for quite long time, until Charles insisted on dethronisation of August. Poland didn't wanted war with Charles (Neither Sweden) - the decision to invade Poland seems to me personal decision made by Charles. Comments? I am not sure how to put that into the article. Szopen 15:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Britannica import Johann Patkul for details. The original allies in the war were Frederic IV of Denmark, August II of Poland, and Peter I of Russia. They concluded a union in 1697, when the 16-year-old Charles ascended the throne in Sweden. The union of three powers was formalized in 1699. The war started in 1700 with August's invasion of Swedish Latvia. I'm not sure if August acted in his capacity of Polish or Saxon ruler, however. --Ghirlandajo 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no, August II of SAXONY, whch was also king of Poland. Poland, as country, was not signatory of the treaty and officially was neutral. Szopen 09:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First it says

message: I think the whole article is a little too Swedish orientated, maybe fair enough since Sweden is involved in everything, but there are a whole lot of other players involved too that is not even mentioned.
This stunning series of victories was generally due to the training of the army, which was far more professional than most continental armies, and could maintain much higher rates of fire due to constant training with their firearms.
Where does this come from? I’m not disputing it, it might even be true. I’m simple asking where does it come from?
*I've also heard that is a fact but  can't find a source. I have found sources that talk about Charles as a military genius and describe the army as invincible up until a small defeat by the French(?). 
:Well, Swedes were quite often losing the battles in XVII century, unless you are talking only about CHarles XII? Szopen 13:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Is there a reason this article has no Template:warbox? I find them to be yummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.59.24.1 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No warbox? 

message: Folk-rocker Al Stewart wrote an excellent song about the War, "The Coldest Winter in Memory", making him perhaps the only man to have written TWO pop songs about disasterous Russian campaigns (the other being "Roads to Moscow").  The song is found on his album "Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time".
Please sign your posts.
Sioraf (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take heed of Charles of Sweden, the Lion of the North... 

message: Why can I not edit what thing on the article? Murderman 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I think the template is useless. It duplicates the information contained in the text and encumbers the page. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're pretty much alone in this one. Campaignboxes, just like any other infoboxes serve a very important purpose here in wikipedia and there is a general consensus to use them. To make long thing short, they allow to get the idea of the entire article in just one glimpse, without having to read - often unbelievably long - articles. Believe it or not, but there are people looking only for the most basic information in wikipedia... //Halibutt 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Halibutt is right, especially with high school and middle school students doing reports, they don't want to scan the article looking for information. They want it at a quick glance. Aaрон Кинни (t) 08:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaignbox 

message: I've heard lots of times that swedish soldiers were proffesional, but that's a myth, about 1/10 of the troops had the regular uniform and they weren't better trained than any danish/norwegian or german troops, Russia also had elite troops though those were mostly deployed on the ottoman front, Poland had a better cavalry etc, the thing was that the swedes thought that they were gods chosen and therefore thought that they were invincible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.238.51 (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A myth 

message: Since the peak of swedish soldiers were 110 000 there is no chance at all that the casaulties could end up as high as 200 000, according to the most sources, the casualties of swedes were about 30-35 000 men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjstje (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information 

message: Some Swedish patriots maintain that hostilities weren't concluded until Russia's official apology on April 20, 1969.
What this sentence means? Have Russians ever apologized for something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gorbachev? :(
-G
Well, 1969 was Brezhnev's time.  Such an apology thus needs strong sourcing. Digwuren 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, then: pardon for my foreforefathers staggered around and killed everyone they saw. We won't do it again, I can promise! Said: Rursus (☻) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology? 

message: The paragraph "Opposing armies"
Is terrible - its a very informal description of the armies with words like "The ottoman morale was the worst" and "The Russians could have been crushed" - too much speculating and tangents. Theres lots of little problems there, but in short its jumping around too much. Tourskin 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section needs many citations from established historians, or those subjective statements should be edited heavily in order to NPOV the section. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor syle  

message: One showing the region of the war and its contemporary states would be nice. Anyone? ArdClose (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political map 

message: By whom? Sources please. CapnZapp (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "that has been regarded as a mistake since it became very easy for August II to retake the throne" 

message: Section Swedish victories says:
:From the very beginning of the Great Northern War, Sweden suffered from the inability of Charles XII to view the situation from anything but a purely personal point of view.
We've suspected that much, at least here in Sweden, but there's also some wide speculation that this C/XII guy had some important limitations in his head, someone diagnosing him as Asperger, or such. Sources for this would be profitable for the article. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for "Karl XII Asperger" (i.e. in Swedish), and found lot's of interesting hits , f.ex. in http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/2002/temp/pda25796.pdf, except that this is in the Swedish language. I'll see how this is reflected in English texts. This discussion is mainly a Swedish one. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's a rumor created of an author Ernst Brunner heavily criticised for his book Carolus Rex. I'll take a little look more, and unless I find another reliable source, the matter should be left as is, and not specifically added to the article, yet ... Said: Rursus (☻) 19:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Yet another change of my mind) This is troublesome. There is a perfectly independent study by some professor Bengt Lagerkvist in Läkartidningen 2002;99:4874-8, the medical doctors professional paper (referent review and everything needed for primary professional and academically attested sources) in Sweden, but I cannot find it! In [www.lakartidningen.se/07engine.php?articleId=1006 this paper], prof Lagerkvist claims that the C/XII-was-an-Asperger is a strong case, with very good reasons to believe... Said: Rursus (☻) 20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: * ncbi.nlm.nih.gov indication of that article's general acceptability, maybe, ...
Dear Rursus, thak you for the link on Aspeger Syndrom, very interesting. I guess one can alway´s spekulat on Karl XII mental state without ever comming too anyting conclusive.
18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The head of Charles XII

message: I have taken the liberty to edit a small section, which i found was somewhat un-neutral.
The original section read:
Denmark was defeated in the summer of 1700, in what was to be the first major campaign of the war, and in such a way that she could not participate in the war for a number of years
My revision reads:
Denmark was forced to withdraw from the war in the summer of 1700. After a minor engagement at Holstein-Gottorp and a Swedish landing of troops at zealand they agreed to a treaty not to engage in further hostilities against sweden
The use of words in the original section strongly suggest that that there was a decisive military engagement between denmark and sweden in 1700, and that this conflict weakened denmark in such a way that it was unable to continue the war for a number of years. This is the impression we get from the written words in the section. And if this is indeed the intention of the author of this section, then it is a complete historical falsum. I have studied various sources, and i have not come across an indication of a significant engagement in the year of 1700.
The only hostilities that took place in this conflict between denmark and sweden was limited to minor skirmishes between local peasant militias (near Humlebæk, Zealand), and landing parties of swedish troops (the minor engagements in holstein excluded)
After the danish army attacked Gottorp, The swedish king Karl XII, covered by the duch and english fleets, launched a surprising and well executed landing on the danish island of zealand, with the goal of capturing copenhagen. The conflict was interrupted before any serious fighting occured. 
In reality the "war" between denmark and sweden was over before it even began. When the danish king realised that he could not break Gottorp before the arrival of the dutch, english, and swedes, he wisely made truce with Gottorp at the 23rd of july, which was many days before Karl XII even landed with his army on zealand. the final peace treaty of travental was signed at the 28th of july. When word of the peace became known the swedish army had to return to sweden. 
Conclusion: The war goes on without denmark
source that indicate that the scale of the conflict on zealand: http://www.roskildehistorie.dk/1700/billeder/krige/nordisk/nordiskkrig.htm
I was not able to find any satisfactory source on the internet.
Davamb (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Careful choise of words 

message: There is a merge tag on this page; it redirects here, but there is no discussion started; also no date or rationale.
The proposal seems to be to merge Charles XII invasion of Russia to here.
I would oppose the merger: I can't see any reason why, and it's usual to have separate pages on battles and campaigns. The other page needs work, but bringing it here won't make it better. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference between Charles' invasion of Russia and the GNW? They should be merged, enough of the atomisation of these articles. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough if you support the merge, but in answer to your query, Charles' invasion and the Great Northern War were not the same thing at all. The war lasted 21 years; Charles' invasion covered just 3 of them. And the war was fought in a number of theatres, not just in Russia. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Over 21 years the fighting was very sporadic, but the decisive moment was Charles’ decision to invade Russia. If this article was done properly in the first place there would be no need to branch off into stubby articles (for a stub it will remain). The priority should be to bring this article up to a high standard and put the crucial moment in perspective and in the correct place ie: this article. Do it properly and you won't need to subdivide. Ragnhild Hatton’s Charles XII and Robert Massie’s Peter the Great are a good place to start.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.151.2 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The infobox lists Madagascar pirates as belligerents: Does anyone know about this? What were pirates from Madagascar doing in the Baltic?
I would have deleted it as a hoax, but it's a)referenced and b) been deleted and replaced before. 
Any ideas? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it before, and the "explanation" in the note "The Madagascar pirates were only collaborating with the Swedish navy and state, they were not formally at war with any of the Coalition countries.[3][4]" does not really explain anything. If they were not at war with anybody why mention them as belligerents? The sources looks legit (they are also in the Swedish article), but I think that some further elaboration on this in the actual article text, is needed for this to remain in that infobox. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A week has passed and no elaboration in the article text concerning the pirates has occurred, so I have deleted them from the infobox as participants in the war. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! Xyl 54 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, checking the given references and others, there really were (European) pirates in Madagascar that supposedly negotiated with Karl XII (negotiations were also done with British Jacobites), and who mostly wanted asylum it seems. Nothing came of either, they weren't allies and weren't involved in the war. It was, however, a prelude to the founding of the Swedish East India Company (and is duly mentioned there). It doesn't belong here though. --Pykk (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madagascar pirates? 

message: I don't think Britain should be listed on the Russian side of the conflict. In 1700 a British navy assisted Sweden in the war against Denmark. Later the relations deteriorated, with Swedish privateers attacking British ships bound for Russian-occupied Baltic ports and due to the British alliance with Hannover. There were some skirmishes between Swedish and British ships, and on at least one occasion a combined British/Dutch navy escorted a merchant fleet in the Baltic sea. However, I am fairly certain that there was never a formal state of war between the countries. After Sweden made peace with Hannover the British wanted to limit Russian expansion into the Baltic sea. A British navy was present during the final years of the conflict to prevent an invasion of the western part of Sweden.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.212.164 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it the British navy that assisted Sweden in 1700 as Great Britain only formed in 1707 so I presume it was either the English or Scottish or both that took part in this action.  Dja1979 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not be pedantic.  It was the navy of the British crown, which had been united since 1603.  The monarch of England and Scotland had a single British foreign policy, and a single set of diplomats to represent him abroad.  In practice, the ships would be those of the English Royal Navy; I do not think Scotland had much of a navy.  It is true that there were separate English, Scottish and Irish Parliamets and Exchequers, but three was a single government controlled by the king from London.  Accordingly, "British" is an appropriate term for the three nations united by a single monarch.  Since in 1700, the king in question was also stadfholder most of the United Provinces, a common British and Dutch naval escort is hardly unexpected.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well on the Kingdom of Scotland page "This meant that the Act allowed for the Scottish Parliament to initiate an independent foreign policy during an era of major European warfare like the War of the Spanish Succession and the Great Northern War". So from this it seems that Scotland had it's own foreign policy and not necessarily the same and England. If this is not the case then I would think it would be correct to correct that page.Dja1979 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quotation seems to apply to the effects of an Act of 1703, which was repealed (in practice, if not in theory).  This was something new, operating from 1703 to 1707.  It was presumably a Scottish reaction to the English passing of the Act of Settlement.  I think your quotation would be miore accurate as to what actually happened if the words "would have" appeared near the beginning of it, as I do not think this was implemented.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain 

message: This article has become very cluttered with an excessive number of infoboxes and navboxes, which are breaking up the text.  Can some one please tidy this up so as to remove the excessive amounts of blank space that they cause?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  presentation 

message: Regarding this , since, I'm guessing, that's not the real Charles laying there dead, proper attribution would require that we include information of where that recreation comes from. Where's it from?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it's from some exposition - my guess would be at Fredriksten fortress in Halden, Norway. The actual coat and hat are on display at the Stockholm Palace but not as part of any kind of recreation.Strausszek (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say the say thing as Volunteer Marek. The depiction looks a little tacky, too. The caption should mention the background info on the scene. The title of the uploaded photo doesn't, either. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Second opinion here agrees with my assessment; downgrading the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review 

message: A  discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on major conflict infobox

message: Would anyone who understands this article well enough be able to get Battle of Fladstrand into it, such that this article links to Battle of Fladstrand? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Fladstrand

message: Could this matter be discussed here in this talk page instead of resorting to edit war?
As to the matter i checked out the article the IP address editor repeated inserts and to be frank it seems to me that it is discussing total loss of Swedish lives due to the war instead of the military casualties. Since this article - or rather the infobox - is about the military conflict i do not see how the new number of 350 000 would be in any manner relevant in that box. It might be mentioned somewhere in the article however. What would you say on that? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally time to answer here. Wanna start out with saying I appreciate that you have intervened. Regarding the number of 350,000 Swedish casualties it could very well be accurate, actually. I believe the casualties are as following, 150,000 "Swedes", 50,000 "Finns" and 150,000 from the Batlic and German provinces (the rest) etc. I never had a problem with this number, my problem was that he deleted a good chunk of text with references to it. And a casualty section already existed, I initially suggested him to write there instead but he refused. I understand that I was blocked from edition, fair enough, as long as there's no one vandalizing the site and someone else can help protect it. Imonoz (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is actually very doubtful unless you can provide actual sources to prove it. What i mean is that at the time there was no difference between being a Finn and being a Swede. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fully aware that Finns were as much Swedes as anyone else, that is just me pointing out the regions of the number, since it's written by modern authors there's an interest in pointing out present-day location. The guy I was arguing had his source there, it's "Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015" I don't have the book personally but it's listed here as a source. In the war Sweden lost far more than 350,000 soldiers and civilians. The number of 150,000 Swedish soldier casualties and 50,000 Finnish though I'm pretty sure it is widely used, I don't have a source at hand to provide. And last, why would it be doubtful? This is an active war going on for more than 21 years, casualties were high. Also see my text I wrote about it some time ago here. Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can not go mixing numbers from different sources and coming up with new conclusions. Which is another reason why it is so dubious. WP:SYN and WP:OR. Can't be done. You need to find a source which explicitly states it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the same author, Micheal Clodfelter, and he's obviously using the same material and numbers for both his books. I'm not coming up with any conclusions on my own, I just provided the source for you. And why do I need to find anything? I never said I would change anything in the infobox, I just proved to you that the number of 350,000 Swedish casualties is not "very doubtful", at least not according to any authors I've seen, it's only you stating that so I'll throw that "WP:SYN and WP:OR" back at you. In fact, I would not have any problem with that number in the infobox with the reference. Imonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it is from the same author or not. What matters if it is actually expressed in the source material or not. And that 'obviously' part is rather dangerous in this respect. Mind you - additional problem with the 350 000 casualty number is that the source does not qualify as to what those 350 000 dead were. It reads, on p. 90: "Sweden, the Swedish Baltic provinces, and Finland, together, with a population of only 2.5 million, lost some 350,000 dead during the war from all causes." So we can not say it refers to military losses alone - since the source doesn't qualify them as such. - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sweden, the Swedish Baltic provinces, and Finland, together, with a population of only 2.5 million, lost some 350,000 dead during the war from all causes." this would indicate that these are the deaths of all reasons during the war, not only due to the war. Seeing how Sweden and it's provinces suffered with the plague as well as crop failure, not to mention the short lifespan compared to today and the more than 21 years of ongoing conflict, I think it's pretty obvious that he's refeering to military personal only. There's not a chance that only 150,000 civilians died during this time of natural reasons as well as due to the war. But yes, the text you quoted is not clear, even though it most likely refeers to military personal only, I haven't read his book(s) personally, but I think it's important to see in what context this is taken out of. Among others, Peter Ullgren states that 205,000 military personal died from Sweden and Finland only on page 326 in his book Det stora nordiska kriget 1700-1721 that is 170,000 from the army, 20,000 from the navy as well as 15,000 officers. here, Erik Nordberg in a summary of the Swedish wars prior to 1814 states that 150,000 from present-day Sweden died, and 50,000 from present-day Finland on page 6. So nothing of the remaining regiments in the Baltics, German or fortune-seekers from other nations fighting for the Swedish cause. And again, I'm not going to change anything in the infobox, I'm just saying that the number of 350,000 military deaths is probably not that doubtful and should not be disregarded too quickly. Imonoz (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty number dispute 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion