vetenskapochupplysning

Nowadays, it is generally known among Swedes and historians that the 17^th century was the period when Sweden was at its pride. This is the time period that is commonly recognised as the Great Power Era (Stormaktstiden, 1611-1718). Our country was ruled by well-known kings that today are remembered for their great leadership of what was then recognised as the Swedish Empire. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles X, Charles XI and Charles XII are some familiar kings that were successful during this era.

The Swedish Empire consisted, at its peak, of what today is known as Sweden, Finland and parts of what today is recognised as Russia, northern Germany, northern Poland, Norway, Denmark, Latvia and Estonia. This means that Sweden was the third largest country in Europe by land area, only surpassed by Spain and Russia. Sweden was also the country that was able to mobilise the largest quantity of soldiers compared to the number of inhabitants. Thanks to Swedish provinces, in what today is known as northern Germany and Baltic, and a famous and revolutionary system called the Swedish allotment system (Indelningsverket) Sweden was able to mobilise a total of 76.000 soldiers. No other country in northern Europe during this period was individually able to muster such a strong and numerable army.

Considering these facts, you may wonder, why did the Swedish Empire lose its position among the greatest empires in Europe? Why did Sweden reduce in area? I think that there were many reasons for the twilight of the Swedish Empire, but I think it is easier said than done to identify all of them. Therefore, I will share my point of view on what I think were the major reasons for the abrupt end.

I think that the first reason was that Sweden had to fight on too many frontiers at the same time. The area Sweden had to defend was without doubt very large. It is achievable to protect such a big area if you just have to fight against one foe at the time. Unfortunately, these were not the circumstances Sweden had. Russia, Poland and Denmark, which were the countries that had lost the most provinces to Sweden, decided to make an assault on Sweden at the same time, and it was difficult to muster an army strong enough to fight against three enemies.

This kind of bummer has, both on good and evil, occurred again in the history of man. I think it is possible to draw parallels between Sweden’s situation and Nazi Germany during World War II. Adolf Hitler, who was the leader of Nazi Germany, did the same mistake as the Swedes did. Sweden fought against to many enemies on too many frontlines, and so did the Germans. Even though they had failed to overwhelm Great Britain, their last main opponent in Europe, Hitler decided to commence the assault on the Soviet Union, known as operation Barbarossa. So Germany did the same mistake, since they had created themselves two frontiers in Europe to fight in. And when USA entered the war in 1941, the situation was not likely to improve.

What I distinguish as the second major reason for the defeat of the Swedish Empire is quite classical and has occurred more than once in the history of man. It is the phenomenon where you underestimate the Russians and their fierce and rough motherland. The Swedish king Charles XII attacked Russia during the beginning of the 18^th century. At first, the Swedish expeditionary force did well and won the battle of Narva. They continued their campaign and fought their way through the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and were finally beaten at the battle of Poltava. Charles XII and his military commanders did not understand that the Russian weather and country was optimal for defending, but not for attacking. Therefore, Sweden did not stand a chance when they fought in Russia. One major problem for the Swedish army was that it never had a good and equipped truss. Either you have a large army and a substandard truss, or you have a smaller army and a fully equipped truss. I think that this is a huge dilemma because either you battle with a numerous force with low moral because of the bad truss, or you go to war with an army that is equipped but that small force may not be enough to achieve victory. The choice of being tarred and feathered or just tarred (“Pest eller kolera”) is a difficult decision to make.

I think that it is possible to draw parallels to both Napoleon and Hitler who did the same mistake as Charles XII. They also attacked Russia and had extreme difficulties with surviving the Russian weather and country. It is sometimes said that Hitler had the “Napoleon complex”, since he also was a warmonger, wanted to conquer Europe and finally, he also fell for the Russian winter. I think that maybe we can call Charles XII a predecessor of this disease since it is a synonym to power-hungry, which Charles XII, just as many leaders throughout history, was.

As a conclusion, I believe that if Sweden had not fought on too many frontiers and if Charles XII had not made an assault on Russia with his substandard truss, the geography of northern Europe would have been different to what it is today. Nevertheless, this did not happen, and the Swedish Empire, which was born out of a bloodbath, did die in one as well.

According to today’s situation in Sweden and Europe, it would be possible to speculate if the European Union is a result of the 17^th-18^th century when many countries wanted to establish an empire. Because instead of having many countries that want to create an empire, the EU is a corporation where we instead go together as one united empire, and try to solve the problems of the world. Or what do you think?

For further knowledge and information about the Swedish Empire, check out this page:

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=3064&HistoryID=ac83&gtrack=pthc

//Olof Eriksson IB1