The 3 tiers...

[Herr Doctor]

Thought if the starting date is 1444 and end date is 1780 then Sweden has historically been an European great power for half that time.

But I agree that if we should have a debate about importance then more attention should be paid to the 15th and 16th centuries, after that I personally don't think there is a real contest which of the two countries had an upper hand.

Sweden never was European great power. It was regional power. There is a big difference really. I am returning to this again and again: it was France and the Dutch financing Swedish campaigns during TYW, not Sweden financing the Dutch war against the Spaniards. It was the Dutch and English governments involving into the Swedish and Danish affairs not the Swedish into Dutch and English.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

But I agree that if we should have a debate about importance then more attention should be paid to the 15th and 16th centuries, after that I personally don't think there is a real contest which of the two countries had an upper hand.

Yes, if game was set in years 1600-1780 for example, I would consider Sweden to be a bit more important when it comes to historical impact.

 

[Red_warning]

Sweden was not involved in European politics as the great power but only as regional power. Should I repeat the same thesis like dozen of times? The expensive Swedish participation in the Seven Years war was so poor that resulted in nothing but in change of the home government. At last Poland was able to utilize its victories against Turks (yeah, there are not only Vienna, btw) and return the lost territories.
Of course, not all European countries are supposed to be global powers. And Sweden defiantly was not. The United Provinces were global power in the 17th cnetury and even after the economical collapse of the late 17th - early 18th centuries influenced the European politics more than Sweden. Just consider resources, demography and military forces these countries possessed in the 18th century. Your arguments about the trading ports are even more odd: are trying to compare Stockholm and Göteborg with Amsterdam or Rotterdam?


Yes, I was born before the end of the 18th century so the partition of Poland is a great trauma for me and my parents. Are you ok, really? That is why in about 18 pages of this thread I am trying to show that there is no place for the regional powers as Sweden and Poland-Lithuania in the 1 teir and that the Netherlands played much more important role than both those Baltic realms combined?
I am really surprised that some people are so blinded with nationalist propaganda that cannot see obvious things: Sweden never was on pair with England, France or Spain in warfare, politics, economy, colonisation, trade, while the United Provinces defiantly were such a country at last during the 17th century.

Sweden never called itself an "empire", that title has been given to that era of the country in retrospect by foreign scholars. That should give you an idea how those events are valued by historians, so it's not all nationalistic propaganda projected from Sweden.

The rest is not even relevant to my argument and is not something I contest, I've never mentioned Netherlands once. You put word in my mouth and are apparently upset for reasons I don't know.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Sweden never called itself an "empire", that title has been given to that era of the country in retrospect by foreign scholars. That should give you an idea how those events are valued by historians, so it's not all nationalistic propaganda projected from Sweden.

The rest is not even relevant to my argument and is not something I contest, I've never mentioned Netherlands once. You put word in my mouth and are apparently upset for reasons I don't know.

I am sure you had your own reasons when accused me of some absurd "Polish partitions trauma" on the grounds that in dozens of my posts in this thread I tried to explain why not Poland, neither Sweden is a good "replacement" for the Netherlands in what is considered actual European power essentially relevant for European and global history as well as for the historical gameplay.

And yeah I'm a bit upset because the same arguments are gradually repeated in this thread almost every two-three pages.

 

[Red_warning]

I am sure you had your own reasons when accused me of some absurd "Polish partitions trauma" on the grounds that in dozens of my posts in this thread I tried to explain why not Poland, neither Sweden is a good "replacement" for the Netherlands in what is considered actual European power essentially relevant for European and global history as well as for the historical gameplay.

And yeah I'm a bit upset because the same arguments are gradually repeated in this thread almost every two-three pages.

When you say that Sweden wasn't a great power you go against established historical doctrine. I also don't see why you think you need to repeat yourself, you've already stated your opinion earlier in the thread regarding this matter and now I am stating mine. I even agree with you that Netherlands was more relevant than Sweden but that was not what I was originally debating.

 

[Avrelianvs]

Sweden never was European great power. It was regional power. There is a big difference really. I am returning to this again and again: it was France and the Dutch financing Swedish campaigns during TYW, not Sweden financing the Dutch war against the Spaniards. It was the Dutch and English governments involving into the Swedish and Danish affairs not the Swedish into Dutch and English.

I'm really not interested in a nationalistic argument about it, but in the 30 years war, under Gustav Adolf, Sweden was indeed a major player in Europe's geopolitic scenario.

 

[Herr Doctor]

When you say that Sweden wasn't a great power you go against established historical doctrine.

This sounds too positivistic for humanitarian studies. Any historical thesis is debatable, especially such relative one.

 

[Red_warning]

This sounds too positivistic for humanitarian studies. Any historical thesis is debatable, especially such relative one.

If we go by constructivism we can still establish through the text from that era that Sweden wielded considerable as power perceived by the authors through the 16th and 17th century.

 

[chatnoir17]

Well, if tier arguments had been based on only the historical power of the country, China would have been in Tier 1. The technological advantage of the western countries in the early modern era doesn't matter, since no European countries won a war against China. Even Russia had to stop the colonization in East and couldn't get any ice-free port.

There are other reasons fot these tiers inside the game (balance issue) and outside the game (commercial? or national pride?) and these should be also legimized.

 

[Herr Doctor]

If we go by constructivism we can still establish through the text from that era that Sweden wielded considerable as power perceived by the authors through the 16th and 17th century.

I was not denying that it was a power but I was debating the nature of this power. In my opinion the English term "great power" refers more to global or at last European powers such as the 16th-17th centuries France or Spain. The "regional power" is a better term to address the 17th century Sweden's status (or for example contemporary Venetian).

 

[Red_warning]

I was not denying that it was a power but I was debating the nature of this power. In my opinion the English term "great power" refers more to global or at last European powers such as the 16th-17th centuries France or Spain. The "regional power" is a better term to address the 17th century Sweden's status (or for example contemporary Venetian).

But you do realise that English speaking historians refer to Sweden from that era as being a great power?

 

[Red_warning]

Well, if tier arguments had been based on only the historical power of the country, China would have been in Tier 1. The technological advantage of the western countries in the early modern era doesn't matter, since no European countries won a war against China. Even Russia had to stop the colonization in East and couldn't get any ice-free port.

There are other reasons fot these tiers inside the game (balance issue) and outside the game (commercial? or national pride?) and these should be also legimized.

Well, that's just wrong. There were European colonies in China and the country suffered very unfair trade agreements enforced by the west.

 

[chatnoir17]

Well, that's just wrong. There were European colonies in China and the country suffered very unfair trade agreements enforced by the west.

It was after the 19th century and outside of the time frame of EU IV. As far as I know, only Portugal could rental Macao before 1789.

 

[Avrelianvs]

I was not denying that it was a power but I was debating the nature of this power. In my opinion the English term "great power" refers more to global or at last European powers such as the 16th-17th centuries France or Spain. The "regional power" is a better term to address the 17th century Sweden's status (or for example contemporary Venetian).

The name of the game is Europa Universalis if I'm not mistaken. I suppose that's because the change in Europe in that period shaped all the world, so the changes brought by a 'regional power' like Sweden had worldwide resonance even if Sweden didn't became a colonial power. Surely, at the time, England, Spain and Austria considered Sweden a power to be taken in account.

 

[Herr Doctor]

But you do realise that English speaking historians refer to Sweden from that era as being a great power?

It also depends on interpretation. For example as far as I understand David Kirby or Robert Frost places the 17th cnetury's Sweden rather among regional powers such as Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania, Brandenburg-Prussia and (pre-Peter I's) Russia. I think this is quite accurate.

 

[Herr Doctor]

The name of the game is Europa Universalis if I'm not mistaken. I suppose that's because the change in Europe in that period shaped all the world, so the changes brought by a 'regional power' like Sweden had worldwide resonance even if Sweden didn't became a colonial power. Surely, at the time, England, Spain and Austria considered Sweden a power to be taken in account.

Not entirely sure about your point but in my opinion the United Provinces deserves this place much more.

 

[Captain Gars]

Sweden never was European great power. It was regional power. There is a big difference really. I am returning to this again and again: it was France and the Dutch financing Swedish campaigns during TYW, not Sweden financing the Dutch war against the Spaniards. It was the Dutch and English governments involving into the Swedish and Danish affairs not the Swedish into Dutch and English.

And I can say this again. Although the French subsidies were important they were not there at the start when Sweden invaded Germany. And 400.000 out of a yearly cost between 10 and 30 million is not really financing it.

 

[Herr Doctor]

And I can say this again. Although the French subsidies were important they were not there at the start when Sweden invaded Germany. And 400.000 out of a yearly cost between 10 and 30 million is not really financing it.

This is true in many other similar cases during this time (France financing the electorate of Cologne or the bishopric of Muenster in 1670s for example). But the money came as cash from aside and it was extremely important for early modern states that were extremely limited in their monetary resources. I agree that the word "financing" is not good in this case, "supporting" is better probably.

 

[Sir Iain]

The emperor was supported by money from Spain and the Papacy. But he did set his own policy. And so did Sweden and Denmark during the TYW.

 

[Styrbiorn]

This is true in many other similar cases during this time (France financing the electorate of Cologne or the bishopric of Muenster in 1670s for example). But the money came as cash from aside and it was extremely important for early modern states that were extremely limited in their monetary resources. I agree that the word "financing" is not good in this case, "supporting" is better probably.

The lend-lease financed/supplied the British and Russians to a larger extent when they were fighting the Reich than Richelieu's francs did Sweden. I doubt anyone would use that as an argument against the USSR or British empire being regional powers only.