Denmark suggestion

[Herr Doctor]

The 1st june 1676 the Swedish fleet was beaten terrible at the south of Öland's coast by the Dutch admiral Cornelis Tromp.

Another peace of Swedish propagandos? There was the combined fleet of 25 vessels at this battle (46 vessels at all for this period of war in all theaters of operations), from which only 10 small ships (mainly rearmed merchant ones) were Dutch under combined command of Juel and Tromp.

Well, if you view it on a scale:

1) The empire fell as of attacks from all bordering enemies that can be matched with the Napoleonic war for France, you can't realy blame it on a weak nation, rather on the fact that no nation have stood victorious against a such powerfull alliancesystem yet.

It’s not about “weak nation”, but about unlimited ambitions and hardly governable “empire” (and your postulate was that the base of power is the territories). 10.000 badly trained Danish, several thousands of the crazed Saxonians almost without field artillery and without any siege cannon at all… oh and crazed Tsar with 40.000 ragamuffins. Well, it was not the hard task at first really. The other problem that when the Swedish army was crushed once at Poltava royally, there was absolutely no resource in this “mighty empire” to recruit the new one. Which means that these “collected” unconsolidated territories at the Baltics were not worth anything anymore, and thus returning of Skåne to Denmark would not change anything absolutely.

2) Denmark was still unsuccessfull to do anything at all even at all even after Sweden was broken, destroyed army, the king in a foreign nation and the nation trembling in the winds of war.

It did occupy and annex much wealthier, better populated and strategically more important territory of Gottorp…

3) Denmark did loose Norway unto Sweden in the Napoleonic war.

Of course. But only because Sweden played wonderfully on Europe’s diplomatic scene.

4) Sweden was the richest nation on earth under a while the last century, while Denmark have not (What I know of) under it's whole existance.

Khem, well… Are you serious (“the richest nation”)?

 

[Skarion]

Another peace of Swedish propagandos? There was the combined fleet of 25 vessels at this battle (46 vessels at all for this period of war in all theaters of operations), from which only 10 small ships (mainly rearmed merchant ones) were Dutch under combined command of Juel and Tromp.

Well, still Dutch interferance, ce n'est pas?

The other problem that when the Swedish army was crushed once at Poltava royally, there was absolutely no resource in this “mighty empire” to recruit the new one. Which means that these “collected” unconsolidated territories at the Baltics were not worth anything anymore, and thus returning of Skåne to Denmark would not change anything absolutely.

Erm, HD, there was plenty of more manpower for armies,

After Poltava 3 more rather great armies were emerged from a warthorn nation (Not sure about exact numbers but I think every 4th man in Sweden at the time were conscripted), sadly the first 2 weren't sent towards Russia nor Denmark, they were sent unto Prussia to try to break up a border through Poland and meet halfway the Ottoman army. Sadly both of those armies failed miserable as:

1) They got no supplies when they finaly reached the other side of the baltic as of that the baltic was taken in control of by the Danish fleet.

2) Enemies emerged sieging the harbor they had been ordered by Karl XII to get unto.

3) The Swedish-friendly Commonwealth was collapsing.

4) The Ottomans had no desire to follow Karl XII's plans.

The third army was split and sent into Norway, and there every Swede know the history of.

Which means that these “collected” unconsolidated territories at the Baltics were not worth anything anymore, and thus returning of Skåne to Denmark would not change anything absolutely.

Well, they were, one reason to prove that was the plans to reconquer them the comming houndred years.

It did occupy and annex much wealthier, better populated and strategically more important territory of Gottorp…

Don't remember the exact history, but wasn't that as of 1) It wasn't a part of Sweden. 2) Karl XII got mad at the duke of Gottorp and demanded that no support was sent to support them?

Of course. But only because Sweden played wonderfully on Europe’s diplomatic scene.

Not according to the rest of Europe which you can read letters from even today how all kings write angry letters about the Swedish king who tries to capture all their prestige and glory by first letting their soldiers die and then let Swedish soldiers make the final attack.

Khem, well… Are you serious (“the richest nation”)?

Si, in 1970s Sweden was considered the wealthiest nation on earth

 

[unmerged(20616)]

This, granted, was before the EU2 timeframe...but Denmark lost a war to the Hanseatic League, which wasn't even a country. Ah, the powers of capitalism!

I dunno, were the Danes the French of their day? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(30761)]

Each post of those makes one polish province get their name renamed to german or russian name..

Would it be too much to ask to have a more refined map of Poland? The area around Stij never looked like that IRL. The Polish players are upset on the polish player forums from the historical inacuracies in that part of greater commonwealth

 

[Sute]{h]

Sweden the richest nation in the world in 1970? That sound very wierd to me, but also very much outside the topic of this debate.

I would claim that a victory is a victory nomatter the means. It doesn't matter if Denmark has to hire German mercenaries or call in Dutch support. The fact of the matter is Denmark has the finansial and diplomatic capacities needed to make up for their lack of land forces.

Measured in pure land forces Sweden was clearly a match for Denmark in the early periode and far superior in the late periode. But as I said that is a huge simplification. If only land forces mattered England wouldn't have kept their independance.

 

[Sute]{h]

Btw. I can recommend taking a look at this website. Most of the articles are in danish I'm afraid. http://www.milhist.dk/index_uk.htm

 

[Herr Doctor]

Well, still Dutch interferance, ce n'est pas?

During Karl X Gustav’s wars – certainly. But not during the Scanian war. Alfred Stenzel (early 20th century’s classic of European naval history) in his Seekriegsgeschichte in ihren wichtingsten Abschnitten mit Berucksichtigung der Seetaktik wrote the naval triumph at this war was a pure Danish deed.

Erm, HD, there was plenty of more manpower for armies,

After Poltava 3 more rather great armies were emerged from a warthorn nation (Not sure about exact numbers but I think every 4th man in Sweden at the time were conscripted), sadly the first 2 weren't sent towards Russia nor Denmark, they were sent unto Prussia to try to break up a border through Poland and meet halfway the Ottoman army.

This is discussable in fact. The Norwegian campaign army was not big and badly trained. It is not the army of the real power… Sweden was nearly at its collapse and Russian lading to it proved that it happened finally.

Sadly both of those armies failed miserable as:

1) They got no supplies when they finaly reached the other side of the baltic as of that the baltic was taken in control of by the Danish fleet.

2) Enemies emerged sieging the harbor they had been ordered by Karl XII to get unto.

3) The Swedish-friendly Commonwealth was collapsing.

4) The Ottomans had no desire to follow Karl XII's plans.

Of course, neither Turks, no Poles or Lithuanians would support the King without the army, and the state without the king…

Well, they were, one reason to prove that was the plans to reconquer them the comming houndred years.

It was the natural policy of every state to spread its borders within the natural legitimate sphere of its "ex-sovereignty" ("core lands").

Don't remember the exact history, but wasn't that as of 1) It wasn't a part of Sweden. 2) Karl XII got mad at the duke of Gottorp and demanded that no support was sent to support them?

It was not. But it was the Sweden’s only reliable ally and Denmark’s most dangerous enemy (strategically: bordering Danish Achilles' heel – Jylland). It was the main goal of the Danish policy since 1670s to recover these lands. Duke Friedrich was the Swedish King’s brother-in-law (his wife, the Duchess is Karl XII’s sister, Hedwig Sophie). Sweden rearmed the Holsteiner regiments and strengthened them with its forces, but it was not enough to face the full scale Danish invasion. For the late 17th – early 18th centuries, Gottorp was more important in many issues than even the Danish core lands at the Scandinavian peninsula (Skåneland). You cannot say that Denmark did not gain anything. It did and much: the danger from the south was liquidated and its most hated enemy for previous two centuries (Sweden naturally) was now in the ruins and disorder.

Not according to the rest of Europe which you can read letters from even today how all kings write angry letters about the Swedish king who tries to capture all their prestige and glory by first letting their soldiers die and then let Swedish soldiers make the final attack.

But they could not make even a step against Sweden now openly. And that was a wonderful game.

Si, in 1970s Sweden was considered the wealthiest nation on earth

By the standards of life – of course, but for sure not by the GDP or national income.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Btw. I can recommend taking a look at this website. Most of the articles are in danish I'm afraid. http://www.milhist.dk/index_uk.htm

Yeah, know this one. Really nice source

 

[CarcassDK]

Denmark can be hard to play at times, but as mentioned earlier if you just stay prepared its quite possible to expand and prosper... Personally ive made several WC's as Denmark with relatively ease...

As for the AI's handling of denmark it seems its fate turns out somewhat random in each game, and maybe it should be tweaked a bit, if just a bit...

 

[Skarion]

During Karl X Gustav’s wars – certainly. But not during the Scanian war. Alfred Stenzel (early 20th century’s classic of European naval history) in his Seekriegsgeschichte in ihren wichtingsten Abschnitten mit Berucksichtigung der Seetaktik wrote the naval triumph at this war was a pure Danish deed.

I don't know.

The sources I got are from Svensk historia by Alf Henriksson (Who claim that the Dutch supported the Danes at the start by stopping the Swedish fleet to leave the harbors by guarding the coasts) and Wikipedia who mentions a few battles there Dutch ships were involved and there it gives the victory unto Dutch admirals.

This is discussable in fact. The Norwegian campaign army was not big and badly trained. It is not the army of the real power… Sweden was nearly at its collapse and Russian lading to it proved that it happened finally.

The one going through Narvik was at least supposed to be rather well trained (My computer teacher's relative controlled this part of the army and he had researched it pretty much, both from family clenodes and by books).

But of course, as the army was the last of many conscriptions it was of course the oldest, unhealthiest and most unloyal who were taken out for military service.

You cannot say that Denmark did not gain anything. It did and much: the danger from the south was liquidated and its most hated enemy for previous two centuries (Sweden naturally) was now in the ruins and disorder.

Sweden still held lands in the south (Pommerania for example) and other areas.

Sweden was not held as Denmark's most hated enemy until after Karl X's second war against Denmark (As you can see how Denmark celebrated the peace with their great brethrens under plenty of occasions, for example after Karl X's first war.

And Sweden was not fully in disorder as we still captured areas as St. Barthlemey (sp?) and was successfull in other wars to come.

By the standards of life – of course, but for sure not by the GDP or national income.

No, Sweden got a better standard of life today then we had then.

The thing was that Sweden's government had the greatest cash reserves then any other country on earth under the 1970s, which was cleaned out while the right held the Swedish government.

(Any Swede who could tell me if I am right/wrong?)

 

[Carewolf2]

The is one thing I have been surprised haven't been mentioned yet: Corfitz Ulfelt. One of the links have a very weird and completely meaningless explanation of how the war started. With the caveats that Danish history telling can also be coloured I still think it makes a lot more sense, so let me recap:

Corfitz Ulfelt was married to the King's daughter, and used his influence with the king to embezzle billions from the danish state. When discovered he was convicted to death, but the king pardoned him to expulsion instead.
He then went to Karl X and told him that Denmark was in very weak military position after the defeat in the 30year war, and the army had not been properly rebuilt, and argued that Karl X should attack now what Denmark was at its weakest. Already being engaged in a war, Karl X didn't want to engage in another, but Corfitz then proposed to help sponsor the war in exchange of some the conquered land, this conviced Karl X that a war would be profitable. After the succesfull war. He was awarded Blekinge but was not satisfied with the spoils, and started to conspire against Karl X as well, and was finally convicted to death in Sweden as well. Then he fled, and later tried to sell the danish crown to Brandenburg among other stupid things.

It would be nice with an event where a large sum of money was removed from Denmark and you have the choice: Execute or Pardon Corfitz? I know what I would choose

 

[Herr Doctor]

The is one thing I have been surprised haven't been mentioned yet: Corfitz Ulfelt. One of the links have a very weird and completely meaningless explanation of how the war started. With the caveats that Danish history telling can also be coloured I still think it makes a lot more sense, so let me recap:

Corfitz Ulfelt was married to the King's daughter, and used his influence with the king to embezzle billions from the danish state. When discovered he was convicted to death, but the king pardoned him to expulsion instead.
He then went to Karl X and told him that Denmark was in very weak military position after the defeat in the 30year war, and the army had not been properly rebuilt, and argued that Karl X should attack now what Denmark was at its weakest. Already being engaged in a war, Karl X didn't want to engage in another, but Corfitz then proposed to help sponsor the war in exchange of some the conquered land, this conviced Karl X that a war would be profitable. After the succesfull war. He was awarded Blekinge but was not satisfied with the spoils, and started to conspire against Karl X as well, and was finally convicted to death in Sweden as well. Then he fled, and later tried to sell the danish crown to Brandenburg among other stupid things.

It would be nice with an event where a large sum of money was removed from Denmark and you have the choice: Execute or Pardon Corfitz? I know what I would choose

Should not it be better something like: A “kick the bastard”, B “kick the bastard and confiscate his property”?

 

[Herr Doctor]

I don't know.

The sources I got are from Svensk historia by Alf Henriksson (Who claim that the Dutch supported the Danes at the start by stopping the Swedish fleet to leave the harbors by guarding the coasts) and Wikipedia who mentions a few battles there Dutch ships were involved and there it gives the victory unto Dutch admirals.

They “supported” – I do not deny the fact. But as I mentioned the support was more of a symbolic character (and the Dutch did not want Denmark to recover Skåneland in 1670s btw).

Sweden still held lands in the south (Pommerania for example) and other areas.

It was not so important for Sweden anymore too. Mind you why the Swedes did not hesitate much to “exchange” it for Norway.

Sweden was not held as Denmark's most hated enemy until after Karl X's second war against Denmark (As you can see how Denmark celebrated the peace with their great brethrens under plenty of occasions, for example after Karl X's first war.

From all the numerous wars Denmark fought in the 16th-17th centuries only one was not with Sweden (the first phase of the TYW)…

And Sweden was not fully in disorder as we still captured areas as St. Barthlemey (sp?) and was successfull in other wars to come.

This useless rock in the Caribbean was not “captured”. It was bought in 1785 from France (Swedish ally) through no any other reasons but ambitions of such grotesque person as Gustav III (whom I sympathize much, but this is another story )… Do you know btw that when the Swedes first came on the island there was no even sweet water?

 

[unmerged(33411)]

This useless rock in the Caribbean was not “captured”. It was bought in 1785 from France (Swedish ally) through no any other reasons but ambitions of such grotesque person as Gustav III (whom I sympathize much, but this is another story )… Do you know btw that when the Swedes first came on the island there was no even sweet water?

Yes, true, and the Swedes sell that rock back to France later ,,

Victoria mention it,

 

[Grauuu]

Lets just make it short...

Sweden is/was greater than Denmark, and there's nothing to do about it(even though i wish to ).

And I don't think making the danish land into smaller ones would be such a good idea, it could get anoying like clicking on Malta when there's an army and a fleet there.

 

[CoSMoS]

In Vanilla EU2 Sweden was considerably overpowered, which resulted in a relatively weak position for Denmark, but ain't that way back? Just use the AGCEEP setup, it works quite good I would say.

Regarding the number of Danish provinces, a lot of areas other than Denmark is simulated way more ahistorical and, well, wrong. It would be a nice addition to have Slesvig (Schleswig in German), but other than that, I don't see anymore really important deficiencies. Perhaps add Bornholm, but afterall it was under the Danish crown for the whole period except for 2 years (1658-1660, damn swedes ) , and AFAIK it wasn't really that important.

 

[unmerged(21111)]

It is funny to see the Danes arguing with the Swedes but all I have to add is that I prefer Denmark both in-game and IRL .
I think the AI Sweden usually survives alliances better simply as they have more provinces, and the winter to help.

 

[Filip de Norre]

They tried that IRL together with Poland and most of the times we kicked their ***!

That's a lie, I remember a war from 1701 where Denmark and Russia kicked Sweden out as great power forever, while Denmark had the third largest navy in the world until Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Arilou]

That's a lie, I remember a war from 1701 where Denmark and Russia kicked Sweden out as great power forever, while Denmark had the third largest navy in the world until Napoleonic Wars.

Err, even that time we kicked danish ass.... The russians beat us though

 

[Filip de Norre]

The 1st june 1676 the Swedish fleet was beaten terrible at the south of Öland's coast by the Dutch admiral Cornelis Tromp.



Well, if you view it on a scale:

1) The empire fell as of attacks from all bordering enemies that can be matched with the Napoleonic war for France, you can't realy blame it on a weak nation, rather on the fact that no nation have stood victorious against a such powerfull alliancesystem yet.

2) Denmark was still unsuccessfull to do anything at all even at all even after Sweden was broken, destroyed army, the king in a foreign nation and the nation trembling in the winds of war.

3) Denmark did loose Norway unto Sweden in the Napoleonic war.

4) Sweden was the richest nation on earth under a while the last century, while Denmark have not (What I know of) under it's whole existance.

Who is making up this junk???

It is true that Sweden was stronger than Denmark in land military.

True that Sweden revolted succesfully against a larger Danish-Norwegian Kingdom.

It is true that Denmark lost Norway due to betting on the wrong horse in the Napoleonic war.

It is not true that Sweden has ever been the strongest in economy, perhaps icehockey, but not wealth.

If we say 1500, Denmark was stronger, had a larger force, larger navy, larger population and a larger income. In almost any way Denmark was stronger. But sadly Sweden had some of the strongest leadership in a row ever, from Gustav Vasa until Gustavus Adolphus. Sweden won by having a more competitive leadership and better leaders. Furthermore, Sweden was considered as nothing, but a part of Kalmar Union until the religious wars. Denmark had many enemies apart from Sweden, while Sweden only really had Denmark. Denmark had to fight a lot of wars in Northern Germany, especially vs. Hansa States.

By the way, the Swedes got support from the French, Dutch and English to reform their economy and to conquer Skåne, which would result in no due to the traders.

Sweden managed to get a high income, thanks to reforms lead by Calvinistic Dutch and Huguenots. Sweden never managed to crush the Danish trade empire, which kept Denmark economic alive. It is true that Gustavus Adolphus could have annexed Denmark in the 17th century, but to be realistic, he was pretty lucky that it was the worst winter in several years, which resulted in the freeze, which made a landpath from Skåne till Sjælland. And Sweden was only allowed to take Skåne, the English and Dutch would not allow the taking of both pieces of the Sund.

What really afflicted all events between Denmark and Sweden, was what the rest of Europe wanted. Europe wanted the Sund to be open, one piece for Sweden and for Denmark.

Sweden was to strong in the north, so Russia thought it was time to show who was running the north.

And Denmark was punished for allying with Napoleon, who lost the war to the English. Had Napoleon won, Denmark had perhaps got Sweden, or at least something back.

I don't really think either was a majority at any time in Europe. They played a role, but none of them can compare to England, France, Portugal, Austria, Venice, Hungary, Turkey, Poland-Lithuania and Russia.

I admit though that Sweden had a very large role in the 30years war. And that Sweden was more powerfull and succesfull in Europe than Denmark. But It should be pretty easy to play both in EU III, as both had enourmsly potential. Denmark was very strong, but their leaders threw it away. Because with the right leadership, like human player, Denmark would have become a Great Northern Power.

But I think Denmark is easy enough in EU II, perhaps they should have Ugric Culture, but then again, Sweden should ofcourse have the possibilities of getting Baltic and Polish culture.

Bu the discussion has become a little bit silly, as Swedes are making the game, so everybody knows that Sweden will be totally owerpowered -