It helped that the Danes had a powerfull naval ally in the Dutch Republic.Carewolf2 said:
The Baltic trade was extremely important (something that isn't really properly represented in EUII) so they liked to stay chummy with the Danes.
Denmark suggestion
- Thread starter raahoj
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
The Baltic trade was extremely important (something that isn't really properly represented in EUII) so they liked to stay chummy with the Danes.
Most of the times it wasn't the Danish troops who did this, and the one time they did succeed militarily it was by support by the Swedish nobility.
If you look historically the Swedish riksdag did in fact surrender even if the leader of the rebellion/Swedish government under the 15th century did not (Mostly as the Riksdag was commenced by Germans and Danes who supported the Kalmar union while the rebells/Swedish government were Swedes).
But the will of the Riksdag was usualy respected so peace was concluded even if the Swedish armies hadn't been fully beaten.
(Engelbrekt, KKB etc)
Sweden did in fact beat the Danes under a couple of times before 1625.
Under Erik I think there was some hostilities there (even if both sides weren't aggressive at all) I think Sweden can be shown as the victor.
The same applies to Gustav Vasa and others.
The problems Sweden had was mostly the fact that Dutch and the English navy promised to stop all supplies unto the Swedish army if they attempted a siege, and Sweden sadly weren't successfull in the assaults (As I mentioned earlier).
it's true that sweden was defeated by the womenfolk of Copenhagen, furthermore it's true that denmark exists largely on Holland and Englands behalf. but it is also true that Denmark was the leader of the Kalmar union, that they under christian the second massakered quite a bit of the swedish nobillity and only had to retreat due dissent in the german nobles of denmark. (it led to the "grevefejde" which replaced the danish king with Frederik I, this furtermore led to and end of hostillities between the countries.)
It's not really fair to say that either sweden or denmark had the upper hand, it was normally a totally third party that decided the wars between those contries.
But all of this history doesn't change the fact that denmark has to few provinces in the game to proberly show the struckture of the nation in those times.
It's not really fair to say that either sweden or denmark had the upper hand, it was normally a totally third party that decided the wars between those contries.
But all of this history doesn't change the fact that denmark has to few provinces in the game to proberly show the struckture of the nation in those times.
A lot of Denmark's problems in EU2 were AI-related. It just couldn't defend what little it had, and got itself in way too much trouble annexing German minors around the Baltic. Also the annexation of Norway usually happens at a time when Denmark can scarcely afford the massive diplomatic hit those annexations cause. Also the core shield situation is weird (and unfair, imo). Sweden gets cores on Denmark (Skane and Jamtland), but Denmark doesn't get cores on Sweden.
The game just sets Denmark up to get mauled by massive AI alliances. It's all too common to see Denmark as a pitiful 1-province country (with maybe a few African and Canadian trading posts) by the 1600s, and annexed completely (diplo, or otherwise) by the mid 1700s.
Hopefully EU3 will be a little better for the Danes.
The game just sets Denmark up to get mauled by massive AI alliances. It's all too common to see Denmark as a pitiful 1-province country (with maybe a few African and Canadian trading posts) by the 1600s, and annexed completely (diplo, or otherwise) by the mid 1700s.
Hopefully EU3 will be a little better for the Danes.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
I'm properly biased here I know, but I find the importance of Copenhagen most interesting here. In fact where most of you see defeat in every province besides Copenhagen being occupied I see strenght. It is a historical fact that Denmark was never truly defeated by any enemy incapable of taking Copenhagen, and despite been pushed back Denmark somehow always managed to get through. In fact Denmark always got very good peace agreements considering the amount of territory under occupation.
Why? Mostly I would guess that the key to Danish power was Copenhagen. It is centrally located and combined with a very powerful fleet it could remain both supplied and well defended for ages. In addition the Danish throne relied on the Sound Due which was keyed to their control of the water ways not their land possessions.
As to the Danish fleet it might be worth mentioning that part of the reason the British managed to defeat it, was that most of it was in dry docks to show our peaceful intentions towards the British. Of course they simply exploited that.
Really the main thing weakening Denmark throughout this timeframe is our often less than brilliant monarchs...
PS. The US setup an administration in Iraq. That doesn't mean they are going to annex Iraq. Administration is just an administration nothing more nothing less.
Why? Mostly I would guess that the key to Danish power was Copenhagen. It is centrally located and combined with a very powerful fleet it could remain both supplied and well defended for ages. In addition the Danish throne relied on the Sound Due which was keyed to their control of the water ways not their land possessions.
As to the Danish fleet it might be worth mentioning that part of the reason the British managed to defeat it, was that most of it was in dry docks to show our peaceful intentions towards the British. Of course they simply exploited that.
Really the main thing weakening Denmark throughout this timeframe is our often less than brilliant monarchs...
PS. The US setup an administration in Iraq. That doesn't mean they are going to annex Iraq. Administration is just an administration nothing more nothing less.
You forgot the NicobarsSute]{h said:
Well, it is worth mentioning Denmark had third Europe’s biggest military navy in late 1670s (after capturing all those Swedish ships)…
Well, but if you look on papers surviving from the period the Swedish riksdag did plan a annexation of Denmark under Karl X if the assault on Copenhagen would had succeeded and splitting then the conquered areas up and putting up them under a administration similar to which Sweden put up in Skåne and the baltic while they are/were occupied.
Indeed. But Sweden somehow realised that if they couldn't get Copenhagen, then they couldn't keep Jutland and Norway... So Copenhagen did actually play a key role here. Both Denmark and Sweden continually desired to control the other. In the first half of the game Denmark is on an unsuccessful offensive in the later part Denmark conducts a relatively successful defense in terms of the actual peace agreements.Skarion said:
Well, yes.
But you must agree that the Danish defense was mainly done either by their own fleet or by other nations's fleets who made sure that Sweden wouldn't be able to gain as much as it wanted.
i agree with the latter post. But the theme of this thread was actually to discuss wether or not denmark has to few provinces compared to the struckture of the land.
I think denmark is given too few provinces, but then again, perhaps more provinces is not a bonus, because of the increase in research costs and such. lets discuss this instead of discussing if we ultimately won or lost over sweden.
-casa
I think denmark is given too few provinces, but then again, perhaps more provinces is not a bonus, because of the increase in research costs and such. lets discuss this instead of discussing if we ultimately won or lost over sweden.
-casa
Yes. But in EU2 the size of the Danish fleet didn't matter. Sweden could simply occupy Norway and then demand provinces. In reality Denmark would never accept such an agreement, since they wouldn't really consider themself defeated in any meaningful way. Only the Danish mainland really mattered, and here Copenhagen was more important than the rest combined.Skarion said:
The same actually goes for Sweden. Denmark didn't have to occupy Finland and northern Sweden to get them to accept Danish rule. What mattered was the rich southern Sweden and Stockholm. Asides from province control military defeat also mattered quite a lot. Most early wars between Denmark and Sweden was over in the course of a single combat.
Casablanca said:
Its sad to see parts of old myths and national bias surviving into an age where we use critical thinking in historical reserach.
The Swedish assault upon Copenhagen in the 1658-1660 war was NOT defeated by the "womenfolk of copenhagen". Yes the burghers of Copenhagen rallied to defend their city, but they did not participate in any of the heavy fighting or sallies (nor did the black dressed students, they were just visible due to their odd clothing).
The milita formed by the burghers of Copenhagen mainly did firefighting and guardduty, which in a way was important as it allowed the soldiers to be rested once an assault had to be staved off. And I dont think that many Danes know the fact the nearly 2000 well trained dutch soldiers arrived with the dutch fleet on the 29th of Octopber 1658 to help in the fighting, which was about a third of the total force of trained soldiers in Copenhagen.
Nor do I believe that many Danes are aware of the fact that the major assault on the 10th-11th of February 1659 was mainly fought off by these very same Dutch soldiers.
I also do not think that you are aware of how incompetent the Swedish siege was conducted. It was belived that the Burgers would demand a surrender if the city was to be heavily bombarded rather then the fortifications , sort of early terrorbombing. Had the Swedish siege artillery concentrated upon the fortifications, a breach would very likely have been opened, which would have doomed any further attempts at defending the city from an assault.
Critical thinking my dear friend, is better then biased nationalism in understanding what transpired.
Herr Doctor said:
Which hardly helped Denmark, as she still was unable to retake anything she had lost from Sweden in the Roskilde peacetreaty.
Here you are wrong on both accounts.Carewolf2 said:
Prior to 1625 Is a rather long period, In the wars after the ousting of Christian the Usurper by Gustav I Wasa, the Danes did in two wars force Sweden to pay for the return of Elfsborg. So it would be more correct in saying that from 1525 to 1625 the Danes had the upper hand, but was unable to take advantage of this in any substantial(landwise) way.
Prior to ca 1100-1525 the Danish-Swedish wars mainly consisted of Denmark trying to invade Sweden mainly through Småland, but the Småland peasants took to the woods and conducted succesfull guerilla campaigns in such a way that the Danish force, now rather smaller, had to return to Skåne before the onset of winter, without having basicly accomplished anything. Unfortunatly these times are rather sketchy as hardly any documents has survived the toll of time and fire, particulary on the Swedish side.
1625-1810 The Danes did not win a single war.
The one time the Danes got back some lost territory it was due to the fact that the United Seven Provinces (aka Holland/the Netherlands) and England pressed the matter due to the Swedish king having reopened the hostilities in 1658 six months after the Roskilde peace treaty, without cause (and we all know the effects of breaking a peace treaty and declaring war without Cassus Belli in EU2 arent we?
).The march around the navy over the ice of the Belts, was an astounding success, and the Danish king begged for peace, as Jylland, Fyn and most of Sjaelland (s well as several other smaller islands) was in Swedish hands and had king Charles X kept marching on Copenhagen nothing would have been able to stand in his way, as Copenhagen was at this point woefully undefended.
This resulted in the Roskilde peace treaty on the 26th February 1658 in which Sweden recieved: Halland (permanently), Skåne, Blekinge, Bohuslän, Trondheims län and Bornholm as well as some minor concessions.
But I agree, Denmark needs a few more provinces then they had in EU2 (but IMNSHO so does virtually every nation).
Just wanted to add that Denmark always relied heavily upon foreign troops within this timeframe. Mostly german mercenaries, but other sources did come into play from time to time. Like the Dutch troops you mention. Reliance of foreign troops has its own costs and benefits. Mostly it did over time bring the Danish state economy to the brink of collapse. Christian IV managed to build a grand capital, but his continual dream of being a warrior king very heavily indebted Denmark.
Ohh... and in the 1100-1525 Denmark did manage to force Sweden back into the Union several times. Which seems to imply that Denmark did have the upper hand. At times Denmark did lose wars leading to periods of Swedish independence though.
I'm tempted to ask for your sources as well. Not because you are not right Ape, but because you critised other for being unscientific.
Ohh... and in the 1100-1525 Denmark did manage to force Sweden back into the Union several times. Which seems to imply that Denmark did have the upper hand. At times Denmark did lose wars leading to periods of Swedish independence though.
I'm tempted to ask for your sources as well. Not because you are not right Ape, but because you critised other for being unscientific.
Registered said:
The same way Sweden had a powerfull ally in France after the 30year war. When Denmark invaded in the revenge wars to take back Scania, the assault was halted either due to slow progress (winter), or in one case because France threatened to declare war on Denmark if we put siege to Stockholm.
So you might argue that without Dutch assistance Denmark would have been forced into annexation/personal union (which if looking on the Swedish experience would have lasted 10-20years), but without French assistance Denmark would have won back Scania.
I am a bit unsure on the argument that citizens didn't fight in the defense of Copenhagen. We have a yearly celebration in Copenhagen University of the fallen students. More than half the students at Copenhagen University died in the battle, and the celebration of this has end up as the only surviving tradition for the odd hollyday "Store Bededag". (technically students at KU are still allowed be bear arms openly inside the citywalls. To bad we don't have citywalls anymore)
Denmark would never have gotten Scania back, the great powers (who had trade interest in the Baltic sea) wanted the sund divided and they didn't want either of Sweden/Denmark to get complete control of it.Carewolf2 said:
Carewolf2 said:
You definetly need to learn history from somewhere. Quick search on wikipedia (true not the best of sites for hard facts but its better then nothing) yielded this on the Scanian War 1675-1679 Note at the end
Denmark failed utterly with its attempt at retaking Skåne, not due to French meddling but due to Swedish arms defeated the Danish army numerous times in Skåne, and the Danes was never ever under any circumstances even in the Danish commanders wildest dreams ever near besieging Stockholm.
Half the students aye? Half out of 160 in a force of around 6000 soldiers and 3-4000 burgher militia, aint that impressive mate. Particulary since they mainly died out of exposure to cold and disease.Carewolf2 said:
And no, only very small parts of the Burgher milita fought in any fights, though they did help particulary in with fighting fires and guardduty, which are quite important during sieges.
And it isnt the first time something is celebrated due to missunderstandings. Ever heard of christmas?
I used mainly Den Oövervinnelige by Peter Englund, supported by Karl X Gustavs krig by Claes-Göran Isacson. While they are both somewhat lacking in footnotes, they are at least supporting of eachother on many accounts. And I do know that they are both Swedish, they are though very recently written (2000 and 2002).Sute said:
I wouldnt really have commented upon this thread, if it wasnt for the fact I reread both these books about a week ago
Last edited:
Yes, but Denmark gained much more than some territories with this in a long-time perspective: these vessels helped Denmark to use this wonderful world trade market situation when the third neutral side was required to provide trade between the English, Dutch, French and Portuguese colonies, which were almost always in the state of permanent colonial war. This relived and made finally profitable (until 1790s) the refunded Danish Second East Indian Company as well as fasten the Caribbean colonization. It boosted the Danish economy and merchant initiatives greatly. It is the only period (1680-1780s with the exception of the Great Nordic war years) when the Danish mercantilist trade and colonialism were making profits.Ape said:
You also forgot that the ¼ of the Swedish armies until 1660 was still fighting the Poles (just consider how many soldiers were left to garrison the fortresses) and the Russians during the short unsuccessful campaign of the last to Livonia and Karelia. There were about 1.500 Swedish soldiers only in Samogitia…Ape said:The one time the Danes got back some lost territory it was due to the fact that the United Seven Provinces (aka Holland/the Netherlands) and England pressed the matter due to the Swedish king having reopened the hostilities in 1658 six months after the Roskilde peace treaty, without cause (and we all know the effects of breaking a peace treaty and declaring war without Cassus Belli in EU2 arent we?
Ape said:
And you need to learn
1. to read my comment,
2. that wikipedia is a not a complete historic reference
and 3. that personal attacks lead nowhere
The scanian war was the first of several revenge wars, and yes the first didn't go very well. The others are not mentioned individually in wikipedia, except for the great northern war, which was the last attempt to retake scania.
Denmark was easy to play. All you had to do was first annex a fair amount of northern Germany then wait until the Swedes were at war with Russia and then your armies retake as much of Sweden as possible for the rightful king of Scandinavia. After that the rump of Sweden will not pose a challenge.
- Status