Talk:Swedish Empire

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.64.45 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes Protestant Northern Europeans, interestingly. Anyway, this article calls the attack, by PROTESTANT Sweden on CATHOLIC Poland "immoral". UNAMBIGUOUSLY, this is a VALUE judgement, and has not place in a SCHOLARLY OBJECTIVE ARTICLE. Apparently, people need me to explain this.

Swedish Empire and Swedish empire point to different articles (the latter redirects to Realm of Sweden. These should be merged or disambiguated in some way.

• Both links now point to this acticle. -- Mic

Kings

I wonder why there is a long part about Charles XI when the most important persons of the Swedish Empire clearly is Gustav II Adolph and Charles XII

Well, the two sure are important, it started and ended with them respectively, but to call them the most important? I don´t know about that.

Queen Christina took over after Gustavus the Great. During here time the nobility gained much power and influence. Both politically and economically. Charles X came after her. His time was one of wars. Because Sweden was too poor to pay for it´s army, it had to be used. And used in neighbouring countrys. Such as Poland.

Charles XI recognized this and spent almost his entire time as a ruler to do build up the internal strength for to preserve peace. It was this instrument he created, both military and economically, that made it possible for Sweden to endure 21 years of war against an immense overpower. One can´t excist without the others, so no one is more inportant than anyone else.

Jens S, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

and their demise

A real tragedy...

"The plan of Gustav Adolphus was to become the new Holy Roman Emperor over a Scandinavia united with the Holy Roman Empire[citation needed], his death however in 1632 at the Battle of Lützen shattered that dream."

Don't you hate it when death shatters your dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.175.196 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a "fact" that is not proven. It has been discussed over the years, but noone really knows what Gustavus the Great thought about it. Only himself... And an allience with the Holy Roman Empire? The Catholics whom he fought almost all his life? No way, but a protestantic Nortern empire, consisting of Sweden and Denmark in union with Brandenbourg and an alliance of northern german states - perhaps...

Jens S, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

==I wonder This article should be a lot more neutral. To begin with, countries are NOT referred to as "he" or "she". This is an encyplopedia. Piet 07:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It says the article uses material from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, perhaps this was the style in that "encyclopædia". Maver1ck 10:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - this is overdramatic - someone ought to tag it to be "conformed to a higher standard of quality"

Agreed. The English is creaky throughout. It could be from Britannica or it could be bad translation. It's full of phrases like "in respect thereof". The POV is also a little one sided. I'm going to make an attempt to edit it, starting with the first para, if people like the result I'll continue. --Nickj69 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay first section done. After reading it again I believe it is simply the style of the old Encyc Britannica. I've read other articles like this. Although it seems POV, it's not really. Take for example "Sweden's reward for the exertions and sacrifices of eighteen years was meagre, almost paltry". This seems POV. Yet Sweden intervened in the Thirty Years war in 1630 and the peace was concluded in 1648. Even without explicit knowledge you can assume that the cost in men and money was high. This in return for a few islands and a strip of land was "meagre, almost paltry". Also the use of "she" and "he" is grammatically fine, just a little old fashioned. --Nickj69 17:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing seems a bit ancient, could use some modernizing. The nuetrality should definitly be questioned, glorifying Sweden and making it seem like a long, melodromatic tragedy, almost Shakespearean.

What is the Swedish empire?

If this article is about The Swedish empire, then I think there should be a definition of Swedish empire right at the beginning. I mean if someone wonders what is the Swedish empire, this article doesn't really anwser it clearly.

It clearly says "Sweden was, between 1611 and 1718, one of the great powers of Europe. In modern historiography this period is known as the Swedish Empire, or Stormaktstiden ("the era of great power")." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.105.40 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its pathetic to call it Swedish empire.

Then almost all countries in the world could be a empire.

The Swedes themselves don't use that word. They talk about "great power era" (stormaktstid). At the time, the only Western empire was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and the contemporaries talked about the Swedish realm. However, from present standpoint, the use of word "Empire" to describe the multinational area which was conquered by military force, is about correct. --130.230.131.108 06:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure I agree that its pathetic to call it an empire - in fact it was one. However, it can sound a bit silly and tenda to overdramataise things a bit. I think a title like "Sweden as a Greate Power" would be better. This page is a part of the History of Sweden serie, by the way. And yes its EB11.

Why would the title be changed to "Swedens as a Greate Power" when Swedish Empire is the official term? Why is it overdramataising, thinking of how many nations that has been called Empires even though they have a fairly small landmass.

--Screensaver 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

At 440 000 square km Sweden was one of the largest countries in all of Europe that time, and it was very capable in military point of view, now, is it pathetic to call that country an Empire?

Well, once upon a time Denmark too controlled land that expanded much much further than its original landmass, for several centuries no less, but you don't see us running around overdramatising it to promote ourselves in English Wikipedia, which surely must be the ONLY place in the world where Sweden could be called an "empire", not to mention the lack of an "emperor". - Mike.

First of all the term "The Swedish Empire" is not only used by Wikipedia, it is the general term for Sweden at this time. Second of all, Swedens power was at this time to be mesured with other European nations that were Great Powers. Sweden had to fight several nations at the same time, still won and was able to take controll over new areas. The area which Sweden ruled was larger than for example the German Empire, and several other nations which have been called "Empires". And i also feel this is a case of Napoleon Complex.

-Daniel

Danish Empire. I see it plainly as an effect of Napoleon complex, that some Danes react so harshly against this article.

An Empire is the definition of a state which has several different nations under it's rule, which Sweden had at this time, as you said Denmark has in that sentence also been an Empire, so has many other countries. And Sweden was in that case an Empire since the eleventh century until 1809. Infact Swedens realm was even greater in the 1300s than during Emperial times since both Finland and Norway was Swedish, but the term "Swedish Empire" represent the era of when Sweden mastered great military power and significant political influence.

I would like to side with those who propose Sweden as a Great Power rather than the current Swedish Empire. The reasons are:

1. the term "Empire" is not used in contemporary Swedish terminology while "Great Power" is
2. Sweden did not call itself an "Empire" at the time nor (to my knowledge) did any other countries
3. technically, an Emperor is someone who rules over other Kings (such as eg Napoleon did). This was not the case of Sweden

Any comments, thoughts or views on this?Osli73 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding questions 2: The Holy Roman Empire was a contemporary empire (Imperium), and question 3: An empire does not necessarily involve an emperor (ex. British Empire). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

I'm working on this page - attempting to change the language from poetic than encyclopedic. I would appreciate any comments or help to make sure that I preserve the factual core and do not misinterpret any of the language. Hillbillygirl 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles XII

Shouldn't there be a section on Charles XII and the Great Northern War which ended Sweden as a Great Power? I realize there is a section on that in the Age of Liberty, the next article of Swedish history, but it belongs here as well and even more so as the culmination of this Swedish Empire. MennoMan 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Area of the empire?

I've really got trouble understanding this part: "Thus, Sweden emerged from the war not only a military power, but also one of the largest states of Europe, possessing about twice as much territory as modern Sweden. The land area of Sweden was 440,000 square km, 18,000 square km larger than the German Empire in the beginning of the twentieth century."

On Wikipedia the stated land area of present Sweden is 410,934 km², so I don't understand how imperial Sweden, stated as being almost twice the size of modern Sweden, only could've been 440,000 km². Present Finland is 305,470 km², and I'm quite sure that it was larger under Sweden as a great power, so Sweden must at least have been ~715,000 km² by then? Mickey Macaroni 20:22, 4 may 2007 (CET)

It must have been more, 100 000-200 000 km² more or so than you said.

I have no idea where the numbers are coming from but part of the question is to define the Swedish realm. This is by no means easy, as there were no fixed borders in the north. First of all, the borders were lines on the map at the best, as they were not marked, second, there was no international agreements about where the borders actually went. The Sami tribes herded their reindeer quite liberally, spending the winters by the Norwegian coast and summers in the fjalls that nowadays belong to Sweden or to Finland. There was very little governmental authority in the area and even this was concentrated into the few farming villages dwelled by mostly Finnish-speaking settlers. The area in question comprises several hundred thousand square kilometers, so I would not actually give any fixed estimate for the area. --MPorciusCato 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it´s a matter of confusion between sqaurekilometers and squaremiles. 440 000 sqmiles equals aproximatly 1 100 000 sqkilometers... And, bye the way, Sweden never demanded Silecia as the article says, but they did want Mecklenbourg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jens S, Sweden

Re: The Military Success

Someone really should go through the newly added section "The military success." Interesting, yes, but cites nothing and is questionable in some instances.

--American Swede 24.22.163.238 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please check the last paragraph. I think it contains several typos in English. It could also be improved to be more objective regarding the faith of the people of that era. Andras Libal 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really gave this section an overhaul. The original author must really have a bad grasp of Swedish history becuase he described Gustavian cavalry tactics and (faulty) Carolean infantry tactics as an explanation for why Sweden had military successes throughout a whole century. --Adar 31 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomKli09 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The "empires borders"

During the Swedish "Empire" if you can call it that, i have read in some books that the Swedish Empire was as far down and close to Hungary (i hope i spell it right). I will try to look for the name on the post and i will post the name of the books soon :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.239.108.228 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess that you found a map of Swedish-occupied areas during a war? These areas never were part of Swedish dominions though. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Country name

Shouldn't the country name in the infobox be Kingdom of Sweden? It seems that only modern day historians refer to it as Det svenska stormaktsväldet - Swedish Empire. Lt.Specht (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That a period is named in retrospect is nothing unusual, and that Sweden had her stormakt / imperial phase between Stolbovo and Nystad is established standard nomenclature. And given the historical events and Sweden's role in European politics during this period, the classification makes perfect sense. "Kingdom" is far to unspecific, as Sweden has "always" had monarchs. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with having the contemporary and actual name explained in the introduction? I don't believe the reverting was justified. Articles like the Byzantine Empire's which use a modern given name state the name which was used while it existed in the introduction. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Empire without emperor?

Can there be an empire without an emperor? There never was a Swedish emperor. Is the term Swedish Empire established in any scholarly literature outside of Wikipedia? I think Great Sweden would be a more appropriate article name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The British Empire? Hayden120 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Dutch Empire... john k (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair the Spanish Empire did have an emperor for a period of time, and Victoria did take the title empress of India, but otherwise I agree. An "empire" does not necessarily have to be ruled by an emperor. I am curious to know though, and I guess the article would be improved if it contained this piece of information, if it was called "Swedish Empire" by contemporaries (both in Sweden and abroad), or whether it is a modern appellation used by historians only. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles V very explicitly did not rule the Spanish Empire as emperor. I agree that we should discuss whether the term is a later invention; I assume it is. john k (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweden during this period would have been known as the "Kingdom of Sweden". The "Swedish Empire" is simply used as a retrospective term for when Sweden's territory was greater than it is today. A Google Books search shows common usage of the term, including at least two Cambridge publications. Britannica also uses it here. Hayden120 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What Hayden120 says. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

image correction

Can anyone correct this image - 1616 should read 1660--94.173.208.118 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)