what are you guys teaching there?

On the map of Sweden Björneborg is misspelled as 'Bjöneborg', also Jönköping is missing its öös. Also I would suggest having Åbo (Turku) there instead of Björneborg (Pori). One key aspect often overlooked regarding Sweden at this time is that people often think about the country as being a 'north-to-south' country (because it is like so on the map today) but during this time with Finland and the other areas in the east, one should think about Sweden as a 'west-to-east' country instead.

Small correction to 6:52: The Lower Saxon Circle wasn't dominated by Brandenburg, the Electorate of Brandenburg was like Saxony part of the Upper Saxon Circle. The Lower Saxon Circle was mostly comprised of Welf territories like the Principality of Calenberg and the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg. To my understanding, the Welf dukes acted rather opportunisticly during the war, regularly switching sides between the Protestants and the Emperor, and maintaining neutrality if possible. The "Mad Halberstädter" Christian of Brunswick was probably not their most typical representative.

In the map around 14:59 there is Bremerhaven on the map. The city of Bremerhaven was only founded on May 1. 1827, after the city of Bremen bought the land to build a new port.

Would you guys be able to do a video on some of the smaller battles during the Swedish intervention, such as Oldendorf, Steinau and Pfaffenhofen?

I was thinking crusader kings but yeah that guy was on a mission

*Fire & Sword*

LMAOOOO

Hahaha, best comment of the day 😂

I was thinking his play style sounded similar 😂

denmark qas never a major european power

And less than a hundred years later, Charles XII of my own country of Sweden would land us in basically the same boat 😆 If only our nations had cooperated back then I wonder how things could've turned out

​@@guzelataroach4450 Oh, but they were. Christian IV was supposedly the richest monarch of his time, before the 30 Years War intervention. Also, you can't put a tax on basically the entire Baltic trade without considerable maritime power and political influence. Earlier in history, during the Kalmar Union, Denmark effectively governed most of the Scandinavian territory, not to mention Greenland. Even earlier still, Knud the Great was King of Denmark, Norway and England, sometimes known as the North Sea Empire. In short, Denmark has been a major European power several times throughout history.

@@Paveway-chan Indeed, if only. They did for a time during the Kalmar Union. And now we have a bridge between our countries. Also, over 10 thousand Danes own some sort of summer residence in Sweden. Nobody, neither Swede nor Dane, would have believed that 200 years ago.

​@@MasterFatness the economy and fleet of King Christian IV combide with the military of Gustav II Adolf. What a sight it could have been.

Denmark did have "husarregimentet" from around 1614 stationed here in Slagelse at Antvorskov castle (formerly the Knights Hospitaller monastery where Dannebrog most likely originated from) - there's still early maps from that time around which is very cool. But I suppose that type of light cavalry was more for keeping the peace than a fighting force.

Talk of hypocrisy 😂

Yaaaass

That's partly why the military organisation of the Empire was reformed after the treaty of Westphalia. Still, the resistance of the estates to more central power was always strong

Well... You need to have the weather with you. It did not work when the Swedes advanced through Germany, up Jutland, and crossed the frozen belts to Sealand and laid siege to Copenhagen.

Works only if you won´t get ice on those sunds.

Is this some kind of german joke about city that exist but not for memes or what?

@@tomaszmurzyn9123 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_conspiracy

That’s what the Freemasons want you to think.

@@10gamer64 as i assumed xD

​@@tomaszmurzyn9123yeah, we have something similar in Italy.

Every phase is interesting.

@@Mude-wv9bj economics drives politics, politically influential individuals drive war.

If there were american or asian beligwrents probably , but since there werent , then no.

It was only really a European war

I think the real WWI is the 7 years war

@@cseijifja lol No, Americans don't count

@cseijifja And I guess you haven't heard of WW1...America doesn't really count there, and that was a world war..

They don't have a lot of good options

​@dominicguye8058 exactly lmao. One of the more mediocre, milquetoast kingdoms in the history of Europe

He took the quotation "Professionals talk logistics, amateurs strategy" too literally.

@@masoodvoon8999 Hahahaha, nice one :)

​@@masoodvoon8999 Personally caring for the supply train while your army is in heavy fighting might also count as a misunderstood approach of "Leading From Behind" :D But still less pathetic than Archduke Leopold Wilhelm as Spanish commander at Lens in 1648 who supposedly prayed for victory and then left the battlefield to his deputy Jean de Beck before the fighting even began. At least Kings and Generals claimed he did in their video (I never found actual confirmation, so he might not be a true rival to Christian IV in terms of questionable leadership)

Christian had fallen off his horse and down a seven metre deep hole a few months prior at Hameln. He suffered from a fractured skull and a concussion, neither of which were treated. In order to quell the pain he started drinking. This explains quite a bit of his behaviour.

If you enjoy spectacular military losses I invite you to learn more about Danish battles. We so consistently snatch devastating defeats from the clutches of victory that it's a miracle we still exist as a nation.

Bismarck was Germany's Richelieu.

Richelieu is overrated.

​@@MyVanir Bismarck unified an entire country with animosity from other political figures of the time, domestic and foreign. Richelieu stabilized the country, besieged a major Protestant stronghold and cucked Villiers so hard with Spain that he got shanked in a bar. So both men were giants of their time, a man who united all the disparate German states into one powerful federal confederation. Richelieu made France a power to be reckoned with and laid the blocks for centralization after Louis XIII died and his son Louis XIV "The Sun King" took over.

I can see that he's laying it out as simply as possible and its STILL hard to follow, so much going on with so many different sides.

7m

​@@mackomako thats still quite some ditch

I would say Denmark is doing pretty damn well these days...

@@jesperengelbredt Denmark today is not the Denmark before the Clown, clown. Denmark went from being an European superpower to a small country completely dependent on it’s neighbors.

In all times, the hereditary rich have looked down on the nouveau riche.

@@niklasmolen4753 They should really change that view when they get their Armies decimated and he is the only guy to save their tuché.

Because seemingly he wasn't actually that interested in fighting and was just looking for concessions. He was betting on being able to hold out longer than the Habsburgs.

Getting their ass handle in Malta more like, The Ottomans will never match the might of the ancient Rome! the east is weak!.

If I'm not mistaken, the Ottomans were actively sowing unrest in the Eastern lands of the Emperor by supporting Betlhen Gábor, the pretender to the throne of Hungary. However, it would be fun to imagine what the hell would've happened if the Sultan just marched straight against Vienna while the Emperor had his hands full with the Danes, Swedes, Dutch and French... I forgot: the Ottomans were also busy with Poland-Lithuania at that point.

@@leonardoantonini4464 bro, there is only one thing that Christians and Protestant hate more than eachother: muslims. Nobody would have allowed the Ottomans to take Vienna. Moreover it would have probably eased the tensions amongst the empire and forced a truce to fight the common enemy

Yep. Lots of timber and iron ore from Sweden. The Hansa had a monopoly on Baltic trade a few centuries ago but eventually were forced out by leaders after making the wrong bets on who would win the war of Swedish independence. So they got the boot. But Baltic trade was still lucrative and less dangerous anyway.

Yes the Dutch called their Baltic grain trade the mother of all trades.

And by a lot, unless you were Spain (with the mining of silver and gold) or Portugal (with the slave farming of cash crops) the american trade was not profitable since the only serious option were the (at the time) poor thirteen colonies (Spain and Portugal didn’t allowed other countries to trade with their colonies), this is why the American trade was bad at the time, Justin and Kalter already said why the Baltic trade was good (a lot of timber for boats, a lot of iron for weapons, and a lot of grain for people)

1628 blockade. there several (unsuccessful) sieges from 1626-29.

True name is Gdansk

​@@pawekokot1157since?

​@@pawekokot1157 cities across central and eastern Europe have multiple names in different languages. It is okay to call it Danzig historically, but not today

@@pawekokot1157 Danzig (modern day Gdansk). We don't call Constantinople Istanbul either when referring to medieval stuff before the Turkish conquest, that would be idiotic.

👍🏼

Hein ?

I think they're made in Inkarnate

@@MelkromisteinWeeb thx

Good question! I was always curious about that.

Interesting insight

Money

And what does either have to do with profit?

It's almost never about country at this time. Nationalism didn't really exist at the time at least not as we imagine it.

Good.

Good question. I've met several protestant raised folk that left Protestantism. My impression is, that the Protestant theology has some imperfections, that should be addressed. Jesuits will never allow such a thing to happen, and sabotage it where they can.

Rn Macron seems to have potential

Based

Needs to make a return today.

Is this why the Protestant forces offer Magdeburg Quarter to Imperial Forces later?

lol big joke, sweden also lost wars, and got bailed out by France in the Scanian war. realistically it could have gone both ways a lot of times, and sweden was nowhere as competent as you think.

Wallenstein shouldn't have been trying to go behind the emperor's back and betray him. Emperor Ferdinand did nothing wrong

Skåne, Halland and Blekinge wasn't 50% of Danish territory, and Sweden didn't win a war against Denmark after 1658 - except for the War of the Sixth Coalition in 1814.

@@gustav331 Hi! Look up "Freden i Roskilde". Denmark lost 50% of it's territory to Sweden and it formed the frontiers we know today in a large extent. Skåne being the biggest loss since it was the "grainary" of Denmark with the most fertile farming earth. Denmark became a second rate shit country after this. Denmark not losing to Sweden after 1658? Did you drink too much Tuborg? 1676 - Denmark tried to retake the valuable Skåne, but got rear ended at the battle of Lund. 1710 the danes tried again, but got severely rear ended at the battle of Helsingborg by a swedish rag tag shit army marching in to battle in wooden clogs... Please... Denmark was a thing in the middle ages, then... Nothing.

​@@guycalabrese4040 No, Skåneland was not 50% of Denmark's territory. You just need to look at a map to realise that. It was about 33%, as it made up one third of the traditional provinces of Denmark - Jutland, Sjælland and Skåne. And that's not even counting Denmark's territories in Schleswig, Holstein and Denmark's possession of Norway. The Treaty of Roskilde was in 1658. Denmark's only loss after 1658 was, as I've mentioned above, in 1814, when the entire continent of Europe was converging on our southern border. Sweden lost Bornholm and Trondhjem Len in 1660 after your failed assault on Copenhagen in February of 1659 and the Swedish defeat at Nyborg in November of 1659. The Scanian War was a definite loss for Sweden, as you were forced to cede Eastern Pomerania to our Brandenburger allies. The Battle of Lund was not decisive as both armies were completely battered - neither the Danish nor the Swedish armies were able to commence any operations afterwards, as they were both too weak. The war therefore continued for four more years. The Scanian War was mostly a war of sieges, and Lund didn't change that. Control of the sea was decisive, however, and thanks to the Danish victory at Køge Bay in 1677 we had firmly established our naval supremacy in the Baltic. Danish forces held Gotland, Western Skåne, Bohuslen, Bremen-Verden and Swedish Pomerania occupied at the end of the war, and Sweden was only saved by the intervention of France: The Netherlands had left the war in 1678, and in 1679 a French army marched in and occupied the Danish Duchy of Oldenburg. Sweden lost the Great Northern War quite spectacularly, and Denmark achieved its main war aim of annexing the Holstein-Gottorp (a Swedish puppet state) territories in Schleswig. I would encourage you to read about what happened to Stenbock's army, by the way, since you mentioned Helsingborg. He and his entire army marched into Danish captivity after the Siege of Tønning in 1713. Sweden lost 15.000 men and their best general. Sweden would not win a major engagement against Denmark again after Gadebusch in 1712, but would instead go from defeat to defeat. First at Stralsund in 1715, then Wismar in April 1716, then Karl XII's bungled invasion of Norway in 1716, and then his second, fatal and failed attempt to conquer Norway in 1718. The only reason that Denmark didn't also annex Swedish Pomerania was, again, the intervention of France. Sweden could only ever fight with French help and subsidies, something that Denmark didn't have the benefit of. I might also mention that Stenbock was not fighting the best of Denmark's army at Helsingborg. He was facing a lot of peasant militia troops, since most of the best of Denmark's regiments were fighting in the War of Spanish Succession on the side of Marlborough and Prince Eugene. These troops didn't return to Denmark until just after Gadebusch in 1712. Skåne was not the grainary of Denmark. That's a common myth. Only southern Skåne is fertile. The rest of Skåne, like Gønge Herred, is full of woodlands and not very fertile at all. Funen, Lolland, Eastern Schleswig and Western Sjælland have much better soil, and Denmark continued to be an agrarian powerhouse after the loss of Skåne. Sweden, on the other hand, has never been able to fully supply itself with foodstuffs. Denmark has never struggled with that, despite the loss of Skåne. This is why over 100.000 Swedes emigrated to Denmark in the 1800s - in order to escape the poor, starving, dump of a country that Sweden was at the time. This is also the reason why Sweden was on the brink of revolution in 1917, and why so many Swedes emigrated to America. Only few Danes went to America, since Denmark was rich. Skåne was a poor, devastated province after the Scanian War, by the way. 20-40% of Scanians emigrated to Sjælland after the Scanian War, and the countryside had been destroyed. The population of Skåne decreased by more than 50.000 inhabitants between 1658 and 1720 - and this was during a time period when population growth could be explosive. By your own logic Sweden was a thing for about 90 years between 1630 and 1720 and then... nothing. Here's a map of soil fertility in Europe, by the way: soil.copernicus.org/articles/4/267/2018/soil-4-267-2018-f07.png

far better businessman tho

Real mercs.

best summary i've read, lol.

Youre wrong about the last part. Denmark was a Superpower in Europe until the 17th century, starting in the Viking Age, after the defeat in the 30 years war and the wars lost to the swedes.

Nah, during the 11th to 16th century. Denmark dominated Scandinavia throughout the Middle Ages

@@basileus-pr6jh Not really

Very true..

@@Alex-yz6uq yes they did.

Ofc we did, the danish state at the point in time was a largely medieval clusterfuck, and their king financed the entire boondoggle on his own.

Wait if you hate nationalism why do you consider yourself a part of "nation" and even feel pride some kind of pride?

@@Rayan-mz2co Because the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I don't want to be nationalistic because thinking the land you were born in is special just because you were born there is dumb. But I still feel this human emotion or instinct to take pride in the accomplishments of your own tribe.

Patriotism is okay. You dont have to listen to the world today and confuse patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is just the love of ones own country. Nationalism is viewing ones own country better than anyone elses. Mostly based on hatred for the other country rather the love for ones own.

@@Jerown "Patriotism is just the love of ones own country. " And why do you love that particular country? Because you were born there. If you were born somewhere else, you'd love that country. Don't you see how it's just pure instinctual tribalism?

And what is wrong with that? What’s wrong with loving your country? I just don’t get the modern European apathy for their own countries and disdain for anybody who has patriotic fervor. If you don’t like the place you live you should move somewhere you love.