Talk:Scanian War

message: The Scanian War is supposedly linked to the Franco-Dutch War, but is not mentioned in that article. What does the Danish invasion of Scania have to do with that particular war?
Could somebody shed some light on this?--The Minister of War 09:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The Gyldenløve War article documents the same war, though somewhat from Swedish perspective. It's got some nice info, so it would be good to merge them imho. --The Minister of War 07:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tricky question. As I understand it the Gyldenløve War was fought in western Sweden (mostly in Bohuslän) between Swedish troops and a Norwegian army under command of the Danish general Gyldenløve, while the Scanian War was fought in Terra Scania (Skåne, Halland and Blekinge) between Christian V and Charles XI. The actions on the two fronts does not seem to be very well synchronized. (It would be interesting with some Danish and Norwegian input.) 83.248.26.221 09:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Gyldenløve War refers solely to the Norwegian campaign, then is there a name for the Danish campaign called in Sweden as far as you know? Because maybe we should use the term Scanian war for the entire war (after all Denmark-Norway was one country, so we should list it as one war imho), and split it up in the Gyldenløve War (the Norwegian campaign) and the other term for the Danish campaign - if such a name exists. Of course, assuming these names are NPOV...--The Minister of War 09:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian part of the Scanian War is called the Gyldenløve War, and I think it should have it's own page but just about the campaign led by Gyldenløve. The Danish army wanted a two-front war. torstein 12:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea as to what the Danish part of the Scanian War could be called? --The Minister of War 09:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just should be called the Scanian War. There isn't any other name for it, as far as I know. torstein 10:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think I have to agree with torstein. From a Swedish point of view the whole war was called the Scanian War (in Swedish of course) but the Norwegian actions (The Gyldenløve War) probably deserves an article of its own. Both the operations in Bohuslän and in Skåne was far more complicated than the present articles implies and it would be difficult to fit it all in one article. However, maybe both article needs some attention. 83.248.26.221 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with Gyldenløve 

message: I've made a new warbox for the war, linking it to the Franco-Dutch War, and linking downwards to two seperate campaigns/subwars, the Scanian offensive (not entirely satisfied with that one, but dont know any better one), and the Gyldenlove war. These two can than be subdivided into the different battles.
Of course, we will have to rewrite several parts of the articles, but that shouldnt be too much of a problem. Does this division make some sense? --The Minister of War 08:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After pondering it over some time, i dont think it makes sense. I'll put them back together again on Scanian War, with different sections on the invasion of Scania and the Gyldenløve War. --The Minister of War 12:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have compiled an article combining all the information again, omitting the duplicated info. I put it on User:The Minister of War/Scanian War. I'd like some input before i put it online. --The Minister of War 14:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the war 

message: After hearing no objections, i have merged the wars once again. Looks much better imho. The Minister of War 09:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: I have changed the result to "status quo ante bellum",  however i didnt know how to deal with the last part "/french dictated peace with no significant territorial losses or gains for either side" - so i decided to leave it there for now.
maybe it should just read "status quo ante bellum /french dictated peace". I see no need to point out that there wasn't any significant losses or gains in territory....when there was infact NO territorial changes at all. so the last sentence doesent really make sense.
Obviously i also support the consensus based version, that this conflict had no result, and therefore no winner or loser.
Though some swedish territory was held by the danes at the end of the war, the french dictated peace gave the danes nothing but small war reparations from sweden, thus making it a status quo
Davamb (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result edited 

message: I have removed a sentence saying: "On the way back to Landskrona the Danish army plundered all villages it passed, effectively destroying the last support it had from local peasants.". 
saying that the danish army lost support from the local population is a Point of view, and pure speculation.
furthermore would it be correct to mention this, without mentioning all the suffering and torture the swedish army caused on the locals. it appears just slightly biased.
Davamb (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed a speculative phrase