GDT: Quarterfinal - May 23 - Finland vs Sweden

[BullLund]

You forgot De La Gardi campainge...

True. It was a confusing war though, since the Russian Czar and Sweden were actually allied against a false pretender to the throne, as well as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth which was occupying Russia.

I think the "myth" (or at this point, perhaps, a fact) of Russia being unconquerable, begins from Charles XII's campaign, and continues by Napoleon, and later, Germans in WW2. In De la Gardi's time, Russia was of course far from unconquerable and was actually occupied at the time by Polish.

 

[RageQuit77]

True. It was a confusing war though, since the Russian Czar and Sweden were actually allied against a false pretender to the throne, as well as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth which was occupying Russia.

That's minor natural mistake. If someone is going to list all wars Sweden fought during common history with Finland, he/she must have rather good overall historical knowledge and/or memory.

Who was the leader of that warband that burnt down Arkangeli? If I'm correct, some 300-400 years before The Great Northern War. They didn't bring hockey from that trip as a spoils of war, maybe some icons and other valuable stuff from churches and monasteries.

 

[canswetoxic]

I'm confused with this thread.

 

[BL92]

Ruotsalainen taistelee aina viimeiseen suomalaiseen .

 

[Barkkonen]

last 5 pages have been amazing read, always been fascinated by this stuff, but too lazy to pick up a book.

 

[BullLund]

That's minor natural mistake. If someone is going to list all wars Sweden fought during common history with Finland, he/she must have rather good overall historical knowledge and/or memory.

Who was the leader of that warband that burnt down Arkangeli? If I'm correct, some 300-400 years before The Great Northern War. They didn't bring hockey from that trip as a spoils of war, maybe some icons and other valuable stuff from churches and monasteries.

Vikings, led by Thorir Hund, raided it in 1027, at that time the area was occupied by Finno-Ugrics. After Slavs (or Novgorodians) settled there, Norwegians raided the place in 1419. Not sure who was in charge then.

According to ancient chronicles, a group of Finno-Ugric raiders (presumably Karelians) invaded and burned down the town of Sigtuna, killing the Arch-bishop (which caught the Catholic Pope's attention).

Raiding, as well as the unwillingness of Finno-Ugrics to convert to Christianity, later led to the Pope pressuring the Swedes into organizing a Crusade into Finland (then known by other names), which began the process of Finland gradually falling under Swedish rule, and becoming Christian rather than pagan (Lithuanians ended up being the last of European pagans).

Back in those days people certainly weren't playing any hockey games amongst themselves. Fighting between groups, and within groups, was commonplace. Tavastians and Karelians, both Finno-Ugric groups (the former influenced by Sweden, the latter by Novgorodians), were each others' bitter enemies.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I did not mean "warlord" in a negative sense, it's just well-established that Charles XII was a great warrior, rather than just strategist, and largely spent his life fighting in wars, whether he started them or not. He is remembered for his military prowess, and as one of the last kings to have fought in the thick of battle, thus I regard him as a warlord rather than just a regular "lord" or "aristocrat", a man who fought his battles rather than send other men to die in his stead.

By original, I meant that he was the first European leader, to my recollection, that decided to ambitiously march into Moscow, as the French and Germans did later, with no greater success. Russia's infamy as a nation "impossible to conquer", begins with him.

Sure, he had talent for war, but he also had capable generals (mostly) and firstmost, it was Charles XI that made it possible to so quickly beat both Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania and throw Russia on the defensive, against much larger forces. "Indelningsverket" (or in Finnish "ruotujakolaitos") did wonders. The Swedish empire had a professional 10.000+ army invading before Denmark had even finished their conscripting basically, that's how fast they were. It was unheard of to have such fast mobility and reaction time, everything was organized. It also made the peasants content, because when war called, everyone knew who would go to war. The conscripted soldier (knekt) of course. He was well trained and he knew his fate and duty. Not the poor son of a peasant.

Ironically, in modern terms, the peaceful Charles XI created a system that effectively created the world's first military dictatorship, because the Swedish king had a professional, standing, trained army that could be called upon at the blink of an eye, while other countries had to send out bureaucrats to force untrained peasants into service, who didn't want to fight. That's why the Swedish army was so effective despite a low population, a terrible strategic position and general poverty.

 

[RageQuit77]

@BullLund

thx.

Ancient Permia mustn't be forgotten from these pages of historical dimension. There was some Tavastian "king" that raided Arkangel. Can't find source.

@Chimp You know your lectures.

"world's first military dictatorship" doesn't sound right. We have Chinese history, we have Gengish Khan, we have ancient Assyria, and I think Sumer couldn't acquire hegemony without essentially functional military structures of society, regardless and also because of its internal city vs city warfare under over-command of priests of various deities. Eqyptians couldn't unite the south and the north without "dictatorship". Etc.

Modern military dictatorship, yes. I accept that notion.

EDIT: not to mention Sparta, The Model of the idea in Western Hemisphere. Alexander the Great was effectively Military dictator. Roman republic in War (there was some) and Empire in its entire existence (on both sides after the split)...

Incas were militarily effective, as well as Aztecs.

Zulu kingdom (Kicking arses of even British Empire)...

 

[BL92]

Bloodiest day in Finnish military history and hardly anyone knows about it. Keep in mind that Swedish troops were almost exclusively Finnish:

Battle of Napue - Wikipedia

The Finnish army lost over 3,000 men, 2,645 of whom were killed. Only 512 were taken prisoner, but most of them were killed on the way to the Russian ships or died in the terrible conditions of Saint Petersburg.

 

[RageQuit77]

I'm confused with this thread.

Don't worry. You're welcome. This discussion is possible in this thread only because Finns won the game. There are weird thing going on between Swedish and Finnish hockey fans. Its healthy. Underlying tone is respectful.

Something goes right when we all can enjoy from this debate 260+ surplus posts without interference. Let's keep it that way. Its damn f***ing rare thing to happen! The Context is all we have!

 

[aphyro]

Bloodiest day in Finnish military history and hardly anyone knows about it. Keep in mind that Swedish troops were almost exclusively Finnish:

Battle of Napue - Wikipedia

The Finnish army lost over 3,000 men, 2,645 of whom were killed. Only 512 were taken prisoner, but most of them were killed on the way to the Russian ships or died in the terrible conditions of Saint Petersburg.

For just that battle tho? Because the Swedish army were majority german paid soldiers and Swedish.

Anyhow Sweden and Finland allways have been brothers in arms!

Excepet when it comes to sports there we *hate* echoter with passion

 

[Chimpradamus]

@BullLund

thx.

Ancient Permia mustn't be forgotten from these pages of historical dimension. There was some Tavastian "king" that raided Arkangel. Can't find source.

@Chimp You know your lectures.

"world's first military dictatorship" doesn't sound right. We have Chinese history, we have Gengish Khan, we have ancient Assyria, and I think Sumer couldn't acquire hegemony without essentially functional military structures of society, regardless and also because of its internal city vs city warfare under over-command of priests of various deities. Eqyptians couldn't unite the south and the north without "dictatorship". Etc.

Modern military dictatorship, yes. I accept that notion.

EDIT: not to mention Sparta, The Model of the idea in Western Hemisphere. Alexander the Great was effectively Military dictator. Roman republic in War (there was some) and Empire in its entire existence (on both sides after the split)...

Incas were militarily effective, as well as Aztecs.

Zulu kingdom (Kicking arses of even British Empire)...

Yes, that's what I meant, it was in modern terms arguably the first military dictatorship. The entire empire revolved around forming a constant, professional, formidable, standing army and a great deal of organization and reforms were created to make it happen. It was the largest army/ capita in Europe at least. It was the most militarized country that existed. The discipline was second to none, no squabbles and no protests from anyone, even when they walked towards their certain death. Desertion was very common in prolongued wars. Hiring mercenaries was standard procedure. Not in that army and they were only loyal to their dictator, a.k.a. king, chosen by their monoteistic god.

 

[aphyro]

True. It was a confusing war though, since the Russian Czar and Sweden were actually allied against a false pretender to the throne, as well as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth which was occupying Russia.

I think the "myth" (or at this point, perhaps, a fact) of Russia being unconquerable, begins from Charles XII's campaign, and continues by Napoleon, and later, Germans in WW2. In De la Gardi's time, Russia was of course far from unconquerable and was actually occupied at the time by Polish.

Germany was really close to take Moscow aswell according to the Russian military leader at the time... and ofc American and British lend leas helpt the SU to prevail.
Napoleon were also close to do it but the sorched earth tactic pretty much destroyed it.

 

[RageQuit77]

Yes, that's what I meant, it was in modern terms arguably the first military dictatorship, a.k.a. the first modern dictatorship. The entire empire revolved around forming a constant, professional, formidable, standing army and a great deal of organization and reforms were created to make it happen. It was the largest army/ capita in Europe at least. It was the most militarized country that existed. The discipline was second to none, no squabbles and no protests from anyone, even when they walked towards their certain death. Desertion was very common in prolongued wars. Hiring mercenaries was standard procedure. Not in that army. It was the first modern army.

I assumed so, and I fully agree.

Only similar historical occurence of that kind total reorganization of military that comes to my mind is Marius' reforms in ancient Rome.

"The Protest was delivered"

07

 

[BullLund]

Bloodiest day in Finnish military history and hardly anyone knows about it. Keep in mind that Swedish troops were almost exclusively Finnish:

Battle of Napue - Wikipedia

The Finnish army lost over 3,000 men, 2,645 of whom were killed. Only 512 were taken prisoner, but most of them were killed on the way to the Russian ships or died in the terrible conditions of Saint Petersburg.

This is why I say that the hostility or bitterness of Finns towards Sweden is greatly over-estimated. They generally have had too much to worry about their Eastern neighbour, to really worry about what the Swedes are doing. I mean you can just read the accounts of the atrocities committed there, and it's pretty bone-chilling.

I've lost a bunch of ancestors in battles vs the Russians. Not that I'm "bitter" about it, but it's just a fact that Finns and Russians have had a "complex" relationship over the past centuries. Even today, there is still a degree of tension due to the shared border. Outside of a sports rivalry, there is nothing that is as equally "complicating" about Finnish and Swedish relations.

I think, for the most part, it's just in good fun, people reminiscing about the "old days" and so forth, when Sweden was still an Empire and so forth.

 

[aphyro]

Yes, that's what I meant, it was in modern terms arguably the first military dictatorship. The entire empire revolved around forming a constant, professional, formidable, standing army and a great deal of organization and reforms were created to make it happen. It was the largest army/ capita in Europe at least. It was the most militarized country that existed. The discipline was second to none, no squabbles and no protests from anyone, even when they walked towards their certain death. Desertion was very common in prolongued wars. Hiring mercenaries was standard procedure. Not in that army and they were only loyal to their dictator, a.k.a. king, chosen by their monoteistic god.

Ehm you forget Prussia... Prussia are/were more famous for what you talking about.

 

[RageQuit77]

Ehm you forget Prussia... Prussia are/were more famous for what you talking about.

Prussia modelled whole thing after Swedish example. Chronology, you know. And shared armies under Swedish Command (The King) on the German grounds.

 

[aphyro]

Prussia modelled whole thing after Swedish example. Chronology, you know. And shared armies under Swedish Command (The King) on the German grounds.

Ehm Prussian disicpline is actually a saying never heard about Swedish disicpline.

And what? The only war Sweden and Prussia fought togheter were Napoleon wars otherwise we were bitter enemies.

 

[BullLund]

Germany was really close to take Moscow aswell according to the Russian military leader at the time... and ofc American and British lend leas helpt the SU to prevail.
Napoleon were also close to do it but the sorched earth tactic pretty much destroyed it.

From what I understand, Moscow was there for the taking for Germans, but Hitler pressured his command into conquering Ukraine first, for resources (resulting into some of the most brutal battles fought in history). This shut down the door on conquering Moscow, forever, as the winter came, and the Russians were able to reinforce their defenses.

Finland were actually pressured by the U.S., to not commit any further into attacking the Soviet Union. Finns were apparently quite close to occupying a rather defenseless Murmansk, which was largely responsible for handling the shipments from Americans and British.

The prospect of a declaration of war by the United States, pressured the Finnish military into aborting "Operation Silver Fox".

Bolstered by the new German arrivals, the Finnish III Corps launched its final offensive on 30 October. The Soviets had increased their defenses and had moved in additional units from other locations. Nevertheless, Finnish forces took some ground and encircled an entire Soviet regiment. Suddenly on 17 November the Finnish command ordered an end to the offensive despite positive feedback from the field commanders that further ground could be taken. The reason for this sudden change in Finnish behavior was the result of diplomatic pressure by the United States. Prior to the cancellation of the offensive, US diplomats warned Finland that a disruption of US deliveries to the Soviet Union would have serious consequences for Finland. Therefore, Finland became no longer interested in spearheading the offensive. With the Finnish refusal to be involved in the offensive, Arctic Fox came to an end in November and both sides dug in at their current positions.[36][37]

It's another one of those forgotten tidbits in history. What if the Finns had conquered Murmansk? You just never know what would've happened. The Finns also held off from completely encircling St. Petersburg, which allowed the city to last through a brutal siege by the Nazis (alongside, of course, the legendary toughness of Russian citizens).

 

[RageQuit77]

Ehm Prussian disicpline is actually a saying never heard about Swedish disicpline.

And what? The only war Sweden and Prussia fought togheter were Napoleon wars otherwise we were bitter enemies.

But during Thirty Years war against Catholic league, there was quite a lot of German peoples (including Princes, Nobles, Mercs, Philosophers, Religious Zealots, Other Kings...)

 

[Chimpradamus]

Ehm you forget Prussia... Prussia are/were more famous for what you talking about.

That was a replica of the ideas of Charles XI and his chancellors, creating a modern army, which was openly proven by Charles XII doing the impossible in war. The Preussian army was formed in 1701 or so. "Indelningsverket" was created in 1640. But I agree the Prussian generals and those in their aristocracy did study Swedish warfare and kept up to date, because who wouldn't in that era? Of course they wanted to understand how such a geographically big empire, with such a low population and such lack of resources, could defeat forces much bigger than they could realistically defeat. Years matter, especially when they're 60 years apart, in this era. That's basically two generations. My statement stands.

It paid off to have a professional army ahead of your time. Let's put it that way.

 

[aphyro]

From what I understand, Moscow was there for the taking for Germans, but Hitler pressured his command into conquering Ukraine first, for resources (resulting into some of the most brutal battles fought in history). This shut down the door on conquering Moscow, forever, as the winter came, and the Russians were able to reinforce their defenses.

Finland were actually pressured by the U.S., to not commit any further into attacking the Soviet Union. Finns were apparently quite close to occupying a rather defenseless Murmansk, which was largely responsible for handling the shipments from Americans and British.

The prospect of a declaration of war by the United States, pressured the Finnish military into aborting "Operation Silver Fox".

It's another one of those forgotten tidbits in history. What if the Finns had conquered Murmansk? You just never know what would've happened.

Thank you for that never heard about that Murmansk you learn something new everyday!

Well about that late atk on Moscow was first Italys dumb atk on Greece which prolonged the atk on SU.

And if Finland had taken Murmansk I have no idea if SU would have survived without the lend leas.

 

[RageQuit77]

@Chimp I apologize I cannot "like". I have no button for it. Its like being in penalty box (deservedly so).

I would like to like tho.

Your corrections are correct.

 

[aphyro]

But during Thirty Years war against Catholic league, there was quite a lot of German peoples (including Princes, Nobles, Mercs, Philosophers, Religious Zealots, Other Kings...)

What about thirty years war? It was basically Sweden vs HRE with money from France.

 

[aphyro]

That was a replica of the idea of Charles XI creating a modern army. The Preussian army was formed in 1701 or so. "Indelningsverket" was created in 1640. But I agree the Prussian generals and those in their aristocracy did study Swedish warfare and kept up to date, because who wouldn't in that era? Of course they wanted to understand how such a geographically big empire, with such a low population and such lack of resources, could defeat forces much bigger than they could realistically defeat. Years matter, especially when they're 60 years apart, in this era. That's basically two generations. My statement stands.

It paid off to have a professional army ahead of your time. Let's put it that way.

And Swedish generals and kings studdied the Dutch army... and took inspirations from it.

But I agree Sweden were pretty darn impressive