Talk:Stockholm Bloodbath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The term "Stockholm bloodbath" looks like bias but is apparently the standard one for this incident. Google gives 652 hits for this.

It surely is biased, just like the Swedes calling the king "Christian the Tyrant" although he in Denmark is known as "Christian the good". But calling it "massacre" instead doesn't make it more NPOV.
-- Ruhrjung 14:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, he is NOT known as "Christian the good" in Denmark. That is a historical myth. Den fjättrade ankan 15:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I propose you to discuss that with the Danes:
--Ruhrjung 16:06, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you read [1] and also Dansk biografisk Lexikon / III. Bind. Brandt - Clavus /, which also, by the way, call it "det stockholmske Blodbad". So why should it be biased when then danish biographers call it Bloodbath themsleves? Den fjättrade ankan 19:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Dansk biografisk Lexikon isn't precisely unbiased, either. ;->>
But I'm glad to see that you've taken up the discussion there.
--Ruhrjung 07:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the term "Stockholm bloodbath" is not NPOV in any way.

Firstly, it is the most common name for the incident.

Secondly, it is the name used by both "sides" in the incident. How could it get more neutral than that?

Thirdly, any bias in the term "bloodbath" is bias against killing unarmed people without trial. Hardly a controversial position.

Fourthly, it is offensive to the Danish to imply that they wouldn't regard this as a "bloodbath". Both modern and contemporary danes regarded this as a barbaric act and so did the rest of Europe. After a Papal inquest, Didrik Slaghekk was burned to death in the Stortorv in Copenhagen for having instigated the massacre.

Fifth, and last, it is not a term unique to this incident, nor does it have any particular Swedish-Danish ties, because the term is also used for "Linköpings bloodbath", a similar purge commited later by Swedes against Swedes.

- We don't call him Christian the Good, and some might disbute if a 100 people really qualifies as 'bloodbath' or 'massacre' compared to so many other foul acts, especially when you look at what the Swedes did to occupied Scania under Carl XI. Calling him 'Christian the Tyrant' is biased, however, he is not known as such outside of Sweden.
It doesn't matter whether you (or me, or anyone) think this qualifies as a "bloodbath" or not. It's simply the name which is used. Whether the name is justified is a completely different issue, and not relevant to the article. This is Wikipedia, not an attempt at a critical re-evaluation of history.


I changed "fortress of Stake (Stäket)" to just "fortress at Stäket", the name "Stake" makes no sense to me. It appears to come from EB1911, and is perhaps some attempt at anglicization. (The name 'Stäket' is the definite form of 'Stäk' or 'Stäke' meaning 'narrow channel of water' and indeed is cognate with the english word 'Stake'). In modern Swedish "stäk" is an uncommon word and "Stäket" is generally used as a place-name without any thought of its meaning. Translating it can only cause confusion.

NPOV issues[edit]

One would think that after 500 years there would be no controversy... anyway, section of the text reflect a pro-Swedish bias:

  • Patriot is often used for anti-unionists. I am not sure what word is usually used in Sweden for these, but I will stick with anti-unionists. "Patriot" is not used in the Swedish Wikipedia anyway.
  • "an entertainment of another sort began", referred to the bloodbath. This is a weasel remark, implying the Danes were slaughtering for fun. There are more neutral ways to put it.
  • The last two paragraphs are especially NPOV and contain elements of unsustained speculation.

I will try to rewrite keeping the facts and filtering out the bias. --Orzetto 13:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it turned out the most NPOV part was from the Encyclopædia Britannica! Maybe the pro-Sweden bias was caused by the fact that Denmark sided with France in the Napoleonic wars. The EB parts also contained some fairly bad writing (especially abuse of complex wordings for simple stuff), but that is probably the style the Encyclopædia was written in one century ago. Hope it's both more NPOV and readable now. --Orzetto 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, "patriot" is a bit of a loaded word. "Nationalist" would perhaps be better. Subsequent to the Stockholm Bloodbath, "patriot" is acceptable to me, since it was a watershed event which turned popular opinion strongly against the Danes and the Union. The bit about blaming the troops needs tweaking, since it wasn't the foot-soldiers who were blamed. The main scapegoat was the Danish archbishop Didrik Slagheck. --BluePlatypus 08:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not to denigrate the rightful indignation felt in Stockholm over the loss of lives in this attack, but to me it is interesting to note that the killing of 82 persons has gone down in history as a "bloodbath" while the leveling of entire villages for fun, as described in the infamous letter written by Gustavus Adolphus in celebration of the 24 parishes in Scania which were leveled by fire, where the troops were encouraged to rape and murder the population at will, is never mentioned in Swedish history books at all, except by Wilhelm Moberg in the 1970s. The atrocities performed in the name of Karl XI (most certainly thought of as the epitome of an evil tyrant in Scania), such as the order to kill all males between the ages of 15 and 60 and to burn every farm and every village in Örkened Socken, is never mentioned either. As a matter of fact, if anybody as much as breathes a word about the suffering visited upon the peasants and illiterate classes of Scania more than 150 years after the "Stockholm Bloodbath", the word "local patriot" is branded about with stifflipped indignation, without a second thought, as casually and self-righteously as the word Hallelujah in a revival tent. Like they say, history belongs to the victor. Or as African colonizers put it in various versions: As long as the hunter tells the story, the "king of the jungle" will never be anything but his bloodless family heirloom rug by the fireplace. The 82 victims were more fortunate than the thousands of victims to the South, in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Just to continue, surely our compassion should extend to the numerous villages and towns that were burned on the Swedish side of the border at the same time? In the seven years' war between Sweden and Denmark 1563–70 , Danish forces devastated approximately 7000 farms, villages and towns in Småland, Västergötland and Östergötland. During the war of 1611–13, the Danes burned Skara and the area around Växjö. The wars between Sweden and Denmark are hardly edifying reading, and the behavior of the troops don't reflect very well on either country.--Bothnia 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your beloved "warrior king" most certainly qualifies as more of a Tyrant than Christian II ever did, but as usual Swedish nationalists have managed to sprew so much of their propaganda as to convince their people otherwise. Luckily, people outside northern Sweden know better.

83 or 100 killed?[edit]

The lead says "about 100" people were killed, whereas later 83 is the figure quoted. Which one is the correct one? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The November 10 article says 82... 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the line in the November 10 article to "dozens of people". The date is also iffy. --PFHLai 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone have better references on the exact dates of the events from November 7th to November 10th in 1520 ? I counted the days myself, starting from Nov.7th, based on the contents of this article. I got a message on my talkpage saying the dates are wrong. Did the first executions ("the anti-unionist bishops of Skara and Strängnäs") take place after midnight of Nov. 9th (0:00h, Nov. 10th) ? -- PFHLai 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

83 NAMED persons were killed/executet duing does 3 days, but as was inferred by visitors, several more were killed out of hand but was not 'people of importance' mostly because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because they tried to protect their employeers IE servants/guards. Also Christian II is NOT known as *The Good* in Denmark, if he earned a epitaf in Danish history books it was *The undecided* due to events AFTER the bloodbath (He couldn't decide whether to try and defend his kingdom or escape when given the oppotunity some years after the events in Stockholm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)