Today 300 years ago valiant Swedes fought the hordes of the Great Enemy and received quite a smacking. The Battle of Poltava they call it.
Charles XII, heroic Swedish warrior king, lay wounded and was unable to lead his men in the battle. Even so, with a mighty KEKEKEKEKE he ordered the by then famous Swede rush, the tactic that had brought so many victories to Swedish arms over the previous nine years. Alas Peter the Great, Russian circus giant/supreme ruler, managed to put enough soldiers and guns and fortifications in the way of the Swedes, wore them down and finally won a great victory.
Today we remember this battle and the men who fought it. NB we don't remember fucking deserters who got what they deserved.
12 years later the Russians managed to turn this battlefield success into a very profitable peace.
Those who need help remembering what happened can click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava
:(
Poltava1709 was my office network password at one point. :nerd:
The only thing worse then a Russian empire is a Swedish one. We'd all be eating those rancid meat balls.
Yay! I achieved the rank of Toaster!
It's also the 90th anniversary of the Versailles Treaty.
Today is a hot and sunny day in Stockholm. Not a cloud in the sky. Just like that day in the Ukraine long ago.
Quote from: Syt on June 28, 2009, 03:18:06 AM
Poltava1709 was my office network password at one point. :nerd:
I thought I'm the only one who makes passwords composed of battle location and year. :ph34r:
Anyway, Swedes got what they deserved. And their King was a retard. KEKEKEKEKE.
Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 04:12:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 28, 2009, 03:18:06 AM
Poltava1709 was my office network password at one point. :nerd:
I thought I'm the only one who makes passwords composed of battle location and year. :ph34r:
I've moved on to Olympics since then.
:w00t:
Swedes had it coming. Damn Nazis.
Would anyone care to explain the logic of the Poltava campaign to me? Something to do with Ottomans?
When I look at a map and ask myself the question what's the best route for Sweden to invade Russia Poltava is not the first answer that leaps to mind.
Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 04:13:33 AM
Anyway, Swedes got what they deserved. And their King was a retard. KEKEKEKEKE.
You're dead to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2009, 08:03:04 AM
Would anyone care to explain the logic of the Poltava campaign to me? Something to do with Ottomans?
When I look at a map and ask myself the question what's the best route for Sweden to invade Russia Poltava is not the first answer that leaps to mind.
The march towards Moscow was diverted towards the Ukraine due to attrition and horrible weather.
The idea was to link up with Masepa and his cossack forces and get some badly needed supplies for the army.
When the army under Gen Lewenhaupt protecting a supply train on its way from Livland was shattered and arrived without the guns, powder and horses that would've ensured another humiliating defeat for Peter the "great" the fate of the main army was basically sealed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.algonet.se%2F%257Ehogman%2Fsymbol%2Fk_poltava_5.jpg&hash=9032e58b03a20c2dc486f5b548dc9b989f7850f8)
WTF were you thinking going to the Ukraine anyway? (I see the answer, just...WTF)
Thanks to that epic fail you gave the world Finland. (no wait...that was later....Oh well, you were on the road to there)
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2009, 08:51:20 AM
WTF were you thinking going to the Ukraine anyway? (I see the answer, just...WTF)
Thanks to that epic fail you gave the world Finland.
- The field army wasn't going to be able to reach Moscow before the winter set in
- Morale was faltering
- Ammo and food was running out
- Turning back was not an option given that the entire countryside was plundered and ravaged by both the advancing Swedes but mainly the retreating Russians.
- Misinformation about the size of Masepa's available forces led Charles to believe that instead of a rag-tag force of a few thousand there would be about 40 000 soldiers available, doubling the size of his army.
- The general idea was that the only way to defeat Russia would be to take Moscow.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2009, 03:20:16 AM
The only thing worse then a Russian empire is a Swedish one. We'd all be eating those rancid meat balls.
Delicious Swedish meatballs. Only one of 2 things they gave the world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2009, 08:03:04 AM
Would anyone care to explain the logic of the Poltava campaign to me? Something to do with Ottomans?
When I look at a map and ask myself the question what's the best route for Sweden to invade Russia Poltava is not the first answer that leaps to mind.
When Charles set out from Saxony in 1707 he had essentially 2 routes to choose from. He could either take a northern route through the Swedish provinces on the Baltic (where the Russians had made serious progress), and take out newly founded St Petersburg. Some advicers at the time and several historians since have considered this to have been the sensible, low-risk option. The other possibility was a direct thrust along the main road through Smolensk to Moscow.
The problem with the northern route was that
A) the provinces had been ravaged by years of war, and they were also Swedish. This made making them a battleground or base for a Russian campaign less attractive.
B) more importantly there was nothing in the area that would force Peter to make peace. Peter had suffered catastrophic defeat in that exact region once before (the Narva campaign of 1700) and he had continued the war. Meaning that Charles would still have had to invade Russia, which leads to C.
C) Using fairly desolate northwestern Russa as a way to Moscow made little sense, especially since Charles would have had lost time getting there and clearing out the Russians in the Swedish provinces.
The key to the issue is that nothing short of Moscow would force Peter to make peace. Then going by the direct route where there at least existed a highway made sense. Which leads us to the question: why Ukraine? I will try to explain.
In 1708 Charles advanced on Smolensk, planning to meet up with a second army led by Lewenhaupt coming from Riga with a huge supply train. For a number of reasons the two armies failed to make contact and seeing the desolation that Peter's scorched earth tactics had wreaked ahead of him Charles made the decision to make for the Ukraine for supply reasons. Eventually the second army did make it to Charles, but only 6,000 men and no supply train. They had lost it at the battle of Lesna. So on to the Ukraine it was. The plan was to winter there and make a push on Moscow from the south in the summer. The fact that Cossacks were in revolt against Peter also factored in, there had been diplomatic contacts between the Swedes and the rebels/freedom fighters for a while. Unfortunately Peter managed to quickly cripple the uprising and only some thousands of Cossacks joined Charles. At Christmas extreme cold hit (1708-09 was an extremely cold winter in all of Europe) and the Swedes suffered. In the spring Charles laid siege to Poltava. The exact reason for this is not known with certainty. Supposedly the siege wasn't pressed very hard leading some to guess that Charles used it to try to bring Peter to battle. If so Charles was certainly correct that a major field action was the best thing that could happen to the Swedes (as always before). On 17 June Charles was shot in the foot and over the next week he came close to death from fever. Whether he had learned of Charles's wound or not Peter then decided to close with the Swedes and make camp within striking distance of the siegeworks around Poltava. Charles decided on a surprise attack at dawn and the rest is history. Er, just like the previous parts.
Meh, fuck you Slarg.
QuoteThe Swedes — their destiny is to be ruled by mad kings. Their king was insane, they changed him and took another, Bernadotte, who promptly went out of his mind — because no Swede who wasn't a madman would conclude alliances with Russia.
Watch out Slargos! The Faltermen are coming to get you! :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2009, 09:13:58 AM
Watch out Slargos! The Faltermen are coming to get you! :(
:lol:
Fältarmén = Field army.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 28, 2009, 09:03:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2009, 03:20:16 AM
The only thing worse then a Russian empire is a Swedish one. We'd all be eating those rancid meat balls.
Delicious Swedish meatballs. Only one of 2 things they gave the world.
The other better be tall, HOTT blondes ladies.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 28, 2009, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 28, 2009, 09:03:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2009, 03:20:16 AM
The only thing worse then a Russian empire is a Swedish one. We'd all be eating those rancid meat balls.
Delicious Swedish meatballs. Only one of 2 things they gave the world.
The other better be tall, HOTT blondes ladies.
Yes. Duh.
Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 04:13:33 AM
Anyway, Swedes got what they deserved. And their King was a retard. KEKEKEKEKE.
You Russians always stick together.
Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2009, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 04:13:33 AM
Anyway, Swedes got what they deserved. And their King was a retard. KEKEKEKEKE.
You Russians always stick together.
The polacks allied with the russians back then. Marti is dreaming of the glory days when his nation was sucking Peter's cock.
I don't know about you, but tonight I will read some books on the campaign and drink to the health of Peter the Great and of all the men dead at Poltava.
It's not that I hate Sweden, some of my best... furniture is Swedish, but without Poltava the modern, civilized Sweden we all know and love, the peaceful, neutral country of sexually liberated tall blondes, nudism, Swedish Gymnastics, civilized debate, generous welfare state, Paradox and Ikea, wouldn't have existed.
And the world was definitely a better place while Charles XII had no army to toy with... don't get me wrong, I fully understand Turkey couldn't be expected to house those so-called political refugees indefinitely, but Sweden has good reasons to rue the day Charles returned home.
Incidentally, it's interesting to compare the comparatively slow Swedish invasion with the 'blitzkrieg style' French rush towards Moscow. I wonder if Napoleon hurried so much precisely because Charles XII didn't and the result was.. well, the result was Poltava!
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 28, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2009, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 04:13:33 AM
Anyway, Swedes got what they deserved. And their King was a retard. KEKEKEKEKE.
You Russians always stick together.
The polacks allied with the russians back then. Marti is dreaming of the glory days when his nation was sucking Peter's cock.
The Polish people are extinct. All that is left of them is a degenerate subspecies of Russian.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 28, 2009, 12:50:51 PM
It's not that I hate Sweden, some of my best... furniture is Swedish, but without Poltava the modern, civilized Sweden we all know and love, the peaceful, neutral country of sexually liberated tall blondes, nudism, Swedish Gymnastics, civilized debate, generous welfare state, Paradox and Ikea, wouldn't have existed.
Of course it would have. The overthrow of Sweden was inevitable.
That said, do we really love a Sweden that's built on moral cowardice?
Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2009, 08:59:02 AM
- The general idea was that the only way to defeat Russia would be to take Moscow.
That was the fail, Moscow was taken 100 years earlier, during a time of crisis in Russia, and it achieved absolutely shit (in fact all it achieved was unite Russia under a new Czar).
Meh. What would a Swedish victory have even accomplished?
Quote from: Alatriste on June 28, 2009, 12:50:51 PM
It's not that I hate Sweden, some of my best... furniture is Swedish, but without Poltava the modern, civilized Sweden we all know and love, the peaceful, neutral country of sexually liberated tall blondes, nudism, Swedish Gymnastics, civilized debate, generous welfare state, Paradox and Ikea, wouldn't have existed.
And the world was definitely a better place while Charles XII had no army to toy with... don't get me wrong, I fully understand Turkey couldn't be expected to house those so-called political refugees indefinitely, but Sweden has good reasons to rue the day Charles returned home.
Incidentally, it's interesting to compare the comparatively slow Swedish invasion with the 'blitzkrieg style' French rush towards Moscow. I wonder if Napoleon hurried so much precisely because Charles XII didn't and the result was.. well, the result was Poltava!
1809 probably did as much to create modern Sweden. In other words, Sweden owes its existence to its butt being kicked by Russia. :P
Irony is the ukrainians probably regard Charles a lot higher today than we ourselves do. To them hes a hero fighting for their liberation against Russian tyrrany while we tend to look at him as a fool who couldnt see where our limits were.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2009, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2009, 08:59:02 AM
- The general idea was that the only way to defeat Russia would be to take Moscow.
That was the fail, Moscow was taken 100 years earlier, during a time of crisis in Russia, and it achieved absolutely shit (in fact all it achieved was unite Russia under a new Czar).
A strong yet controversial centralized state is more vulnerable to a loss of center than a civil war one. It seems likely to me that Peter would have felt it necessary to give battle before Moscow. And if he didn't, would his regime survive the loss of Moscow? Nobody can tell for certain. My impression is that it was by far the best chance of ending the war favorably to Sweden and that the chance in absolute terms was reasonable.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 28, 2009, 01:21:03 PM
Meh. What would a Swedish victory have even accomplished?
Russian impotence.
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:07:48 PM
A strong yet controversial centralized state is more vulnerable to a loss of center than a civil war one. It seems likely to me that Peter would have felt it necessary to give battle before Moscow. And if he didn't, would his regime survive the loss of Moscow? Nobody can tell for certain. My impression is that it was by far the best chance of ending the war favorably to Sweden and that the chance in absolute terms was reasonable.
Considering that St.Petersburg was the capital, yeah. And Russia surivived the loss of Moscow in 1812.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2009, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:07:48 PM
A strong yet controversial centralized state is more vulnerable to a loss of center than a civil war one. It seems likely to me that Peter would have felt it necessary to give battle before Moscow. And if he didn't, would his regime survive the loss of Moscow? Nobody can tell for certain. My impression is that it was by far the best chance of ending the war favorably to Sweden and that the chance in absolute terms was reasonable.
Considering that St.Petersburg was the capital, yeah. And Russia surivived the loss of Moscow in 1812.
Are you a retard (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:40:53 PM
Are you a retard (non-rhetorical)?
No, that was Charles XII (and all the other retards who thought that simply taking Moscow would make Russia fall).
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2009, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:40:53 PM
Are you a retard (non-rhetorical)?
No, that was Charles XII (and all the other retards who thought that simply taking Moscow would make Russia fall).
I'm glad that you are not a retard.
Russia doesn't have to fall, Peter has to fall. If Peter's regime was essentially the same as Russia itself then taking Moscow probably wouldn't have sufficed. My impression is that it was not and that taking Moscow could have forced Peter to peace or from the throne. Nothing about this was certain, marching on Moscow was a gamble. My impression is that it was not an unreasonable one. And as far as I'm aware it was the only positive measure by which Charles could force peace on Peter.
Why on Earth is there this image of tall, hot, blondes in Sweden? They're not tall and the majority are brown haired. Average hotness is medium; there's better.
I'd have preferred a stronger Sweden. It would never replace Russia completely thus spreading the balance of power over there and Sweden would be able to modernise far better than Russia did. And of course the baltics would be a much nicer place.
Invading Russia? I give you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4LxXu78dk&feature=PlayList&p=BAD38D95752B975F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64
Russia would have eventually beaten Sweden anyway. If not in that war, then in another later one. The size advantage is just too big.
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2009, 03:51:20 PM
Why on Earth is there this image of tall, hot, blondes in Sweden? They're not tall and the majority are brown haired. Average hotness is medium; there's better.
I'd have preferred a stronger Sweden. It would never replace Russia completely thus spreading the balance of power over there and Sweden would be able to modernise far better than Russia did. And of course the baltics would be a much nicer place.
Invading Russia? I give you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4LxXu78dk&feature=PlayList&p=BAD38D95752B975F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4LxXu78dk&feature=PlayList&p=BAD38D95752B975F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height)
Avg male height SWE 181.5cm
Avg male height US 176.3 cm
We are on average taller by a fair margin though if you remove teh untermenschen from the US stats the margin closes, and I bet that the hispanics also drag down the "whites".
It seems the only race of note that are taller than the Swedes are the Dutch. Those fuckers are freakishly tall.
It appears victory goes to "Dinaric Alps" however, whoever the fuck those guys are.
As for the beauty of our women, these google searches speak for themselves:
Image search for respectively "beautiful woman american" and "beautiful woman swedish".
http://images.google.com/images?hl=sv&safe=off&q=beautiful%20woman%20american&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi (http://images.google.com/images?hl=sv&safe=off&q=beautiful%20woman%20american&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)
http://images.google.com/images?hl=sv&lr=&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=beautiful+woman+swedish&btnG=S%C3%B6k+bilder&aq=f&oq= (http://images.google.com/images?hl=sv&lr=&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=beautiful+woman+swedish&btnG=S%C3%B6k+bilder&aq=f&oq=)
In order to further strengthen my point:
http://www.travelooce.com/top-cities-most-beautiful-women.shtml
QuoteIt seems like all women in Stockholm are amazingly beautiful. Swedish women know how to party (http://www.allpartyideas.com/) and enjoy each other, they are extremely educated and friendly.
Game.
Set.
Match.
You're hardly in the premier league comparing yourself to America :contract:
And taller average != tall.
The Dutch are tall. I really see it with them. Maybe its just Uppsala is where you keep your midgets.
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2009, 03:51:20 PM
Why on Earth is there this image of tall, hot, blondes in Sweden? They're not tall and the majority are brown haired. Average hotness is medium; there's better.
I'd have preferred a stronger Sweden. It would never replace Russia completely thus spreading the balance of power over there and Sweden would be able to modernise far better than Russia did. And of course the baltics would be a much nicer place.
Invading Russia? I give you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4LxXu78dk&feature=PlayList&p=BAD38D95752B975F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64
I blame Hitler. Mind you, excepting the hotness part... :P
Now, more seriously, I think those stereotypes were nearer to the truth in the past. During the last century all of Europe has become a lot less diverse; you could perhaps say the same of the whole word too...
Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2009, 03:58:09 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 28, 2009, 03:51:20 PM
Why on Earth is there this image of tall, hot, blondes in Sweden? They're not tall and the majority are brown haired. Average hotness is medium; there's better.
I'd have preferred a stronger Sweden. It would never replace Russia completely thus spreading the balance of power over there and Sweden would be able to modernise far better than Russia did. And of course the baltics would be a much nicer place.
Invading Russia? I give you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4LxXu78dk&feature=PlayList&p=BAD38D95752B975F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4LxXu78dk&feature=PlayList&p=BAD38D95752B975F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height)
Avg male height SWE 181.5cm
Avg male height US 176.3 cm
We are on average taller by a fair margin though if you remove teh untermenschen from the US stats the margin closes, and I bet that the hispanics also drag down the "whites".
It seems the only race of note that are taller than the Swedes are the Dutch. Those fuckers are freakishly tall.
It appears victory goes to "Dinaric Alps" however, whoever the fuck those guys are.
Now the Swedes are a race?
By the way, from the page you linked:
Avg male height Spain: 178 cm
But really, you should be deeply ashamed to post only the higher of two values for Sweden, and the lowest of two for the US (the other two would say 177.9 cm for Sweden, 177.6 cm for the US... )
Actually the truth would be according to that Wiki page
Avg male height US (20-29 years) 179.6 cm
Avg male height Sweden (20-29) 181.5 cm
Oh, and regarding 'untermenschen' (lovely term, by the way... brings a lot of good memories to your mind, doesn't it?)
Avg male height Black Americans (20–39 years) 178 cm [mind you, 20-39 against 20-29 for Swedes and White Americans]
Blacks are shorter on average than whites? :huh:
I guess my perception is skewed from having played too much pickup basketball. :lol:
I found the Finnish women to be generally better looking than the Swedish ones. There were also a number of attractive Estonian women, although many tended to waifishness, which isn't really my thing.
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
I'm glad that you are not a retard.
Russia doesn't have to fall, Peter has to fall. If Peter's regime was essentially the same as Russia itself then taking Moscow probably wouldn't have sufficed. My impression is that it was not and that taking Moscow could have forced Peter to peace or from the throne. Nothing about this was certain, marching on Moscow was a gamble. My impression is that it was not an unreasonable one. And as far as I'm aware it was the only positive measure by which Charles could force peace on Peter.
Perhaps. However, Peter's regime would only likely fall if Peter himself were eliminated in some way, by that point Moscow was not a major factor and it wouldn't be again until the Soviet era. As I said, taking St. Petersburg might have been a better idea, since that city was far more symbolic to Peter's regime than Moscow.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2009, 04:43:18 PM
Blacks are shorter on average than whites? :huh:
I guess my perception is skewed from having played too much pickup basketball. :lol:
I'd think the extra 10 years that going up to 39 instead of 29 would alter the results somehow; given that people are known to be 'getting taller' it could well explain a cm or two of error.
Swedes killing Russians who are killing Swedes.
How cool is THAT! :cheers:
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2009, 05:40:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
I'm glad that you are not a retard.
Russia doesn't have to fall, Peter has to fall. If Peter's regime was essentially the same as Russia itself then taking Moscow probably wouldn't have sufficed. My impression is that it was not and that taking Moscow could have forced Peter to peace or from the throne. Nothing about this was certain, marching on Moscow was a gamble. My impression is that it was not an unreasonable one. And as far as I'm aware it was the only positive measure by which Charles could force peace on Peter.
Perhaps. However, Peter's regime would only likely fall if Peter himself were eliminated in some way, by that point Moscow was not a major factor and it wouldn't be again until the Soviet era. As I said, taking St. Petersburg might have been a better idea, since that city was far more symbolic to Peter's regime than Moscow.
In all fairness, the Russian throne was a dangerous place to sit... at least for men.
Regarding a march on Saint Petersburg, Chalres XII would have had a huge advantage over Napoleon in this field, a powerful fleet in the Baltic. On the other hand, Moscow hadn't Saint Petersburg fortifications; besieging a modern fortress in the swampy Baltic terrain against Russian superiority in numbers would have been quite risky too.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 28, 2009, 04:21:08 PM
Oh, and regarding 'untermenschen' (lovely term, by the way... brings a lot of good memories to your mind, doesn't it?)
:lol:
So I managed to hastily overlook that there were two rows for Sweden in my zeal to make a frivolous point? I am shocked! -_-
Is anyone really surprised someone from Spain celebrates the birth of pussy pacifist Sweden?
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2009, 04:12:13 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 28, 2009, 04:21:08 PM
Oh, and regarding 'untermenschen' (lovely term, by the way... brings a lot of good memories to your mind, doesn't it?)
:lol:
So I managed to hastily overlook that there were two rows for Sweden in my zeal to make a frivolous point? I am shocked! -_-
Two for Sweden and four-five for the US... and somehow your old eyes failed you and you ended up
a) selecting the highest one for Sweden
b) selecting the lowest one for the US
c) Leaving it clear that you believe non whites must be lower (in height, amongst other things)
d) Speak about the Swedish race
e) But somehow Dutch are "freakishly" tall. Because it's only natural for Swedes to be tall, but... Dutch? Now, that's freakish.
Oh, and regarding beauty I will take Slavs any day. Go Czech and Russians pornstars!
Quote from: Alatriste on June 29, 2009, 04:30:43 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2009, 04:12:13 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 28, 2009, 04:21:08 PM
Oh, and regarding 'untermenschen' (lovely term, by the way... brings a lot of good memories to your mind, doesn't it?)
:lol:
So I managed to hastily overlook that there were two rows for Sweden in my zeal to make a frivolous point? I am shocked! -_-
Two for Sweden and four-five for the US... and somehow your old eyes failed you and you ended up
a) selecting the highest one for Sweden
b) selecting the lowest one for the US
c) Leaving it clear that you believe non whites must be lower (in height, amongst other things)
d) Speak about the Swedish race
e) But somehow Dutch are "freakishly" tall. Because it's only natural for Swedes to be tall, but... Dutch? Now, that's freakish.
Oh, and regarding beauty I will take Slavs any day. Go Czech and Russians pornstars!
Next time I'm going to add a bunch of :P :P :P :lol: :lol: :lol: ;) ;) ;) so you may properly gauge the tone of my post. ;) ;) ;)
Perhaps I could do something like this at the end of posts where I am joking:
[Alatriste] ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D [/Alatriste]
It could be our little "thing". ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D
Happy Poltava Day! :unsure:
Poltava was bad but nothing was so horrible for Eastern European history than the failure of the Grand Vizier to kill Peter during the Pruth campaign. I hold that fucker personally responsible for the rise of Russia.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 11:37:05 AM
Poltava was bad but nothing was so horrible for Eastern European history than the failure of the Grand Vizier to kill Peter during the Pruth campaign. I hold that fucker personally responsible for the rise of Russia.
didn't the Sultan execute that Vizier because of it?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2009, 05:40:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
I'm glad that you are not a retard.
Russia doesn't have to fall, Peter has to fall. If Peter's regime was essentially the same as Russia itself then taking Moscow probably wouldn't have sufficed. My impression is that it was not and that taking Moscow could have forced Peter to peace or from the throne. Nothing about this was certain, marching on Moscow was a gamble. My impression is that it was not an unreasonable one. And as far as I'm aware it was the only positive measure by which Charles could force peace on Peter.
Perhaps. However, Peter's regime would only likely fall if Peter himself were eliminated in some way, by that point Moscow was not a major factor and it wouldn't be again until the Soviet era. As I said, taking St. Petersburg might have been a better idea, since that city was far more symbolic to Peter's regime than Moscow.
St Petersburg was immensely important to Peter. It was not immensely important to Russia. Meaning that losing it Peter would just withdraw to the interior and prepare for the next campaign (since he really really wanted it)and his regime wouldn't lose a lot of prestige to Russians (since it wasn't a big thing to them).
Also I am not an expert on St Petersburg but in 1708 it was five years old and essentially a fortified little swamp town and not exactly a major Russian center in any meaningful way comparable to Moscow. Saying that Moscow wasn't a major factor to Russia in 1708 seems a bit wrong IMHO.
So basically the Swedes had trouble reading their maps and instead of hanging a left and heading on to Moscow, they missed the turn and kept heading south.
Glad to see the only damage they can now inflict on the world is make furniture that doesnt fit together very well.
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2009, 03:12:22 AM
Today 300 years ago valiant Swedes fought the hordes of the Great Enemy
I like the bolded part the best.
:cry: :cry: :cry:
However, since we are now in alt-his territory, did Sweden really had a chance to topple Russia out of the war if it had invaded Russia after Narva, the collapse of Denmark and the peace of Travendal, instead of turning westward and anally raping Martinus' ancestors in Poland to dethrone Augustus of Saxony?
Also, there at least a possible white peace for Sweden in 1707 when Peter was ready to restitute everything except Saint-Petersburg and the line of the Neva. But would it have been a real peace, or only a truce?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
So basically the Swedes had trouble reading their maps and instead of hanging a left and heading on to Moscow, they missed the turn and kept heading south.
Glad to see the only damage they can now inflict on the world is make furniture that doesnt fit together very well.
IIRC, Charles and his Army were in the Ottoman Empire and were haeding North?
Quote from: Habsburg on June 29, 2009, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
So basically the Swedes had trouble reading their maps and instead of hanging a left and heading on to Moscow, they missed the turn and kept heading south.
Glad to see the only damage they can now inflict on the world is make furniture that doesnt fit together very well.
IIRC, Charles and his Army were in the Ottoman Empire and were haeding North?
To get there they had to head south and on the way missed that crucial left turn.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
So basically the Swedes had trouble reading their maps and instead of hanging a left and heading on to Moscow, they missed the turn and kept heading south.
Glad to see the only damage they can now inflict on the world is make furniture that doesnt fit together very well.
They thought they could get Ukrainian support.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 05:28:27 PM
They thought they could get Ukrainian support.
There is a lot to be said about that but out of deference to BB and my own maternal line I will refrain from comment.
Quote from: Drakken on June 29, 2009, 04:42:49 PM
:cry: :cry: :cry:
However, since we are now in alt-his territory, did Sweden really had a chance to topple Russia out of the war if it had invaded Russia after Narva, the collapse of Denmark and the peace of Travendal, instead of turning westward and anally raping Martinus' ancestors in Poland to dethrone Augustus of Saxony?
Also, there at least a possible white peace for Sweden in 1707 when Peter was ready to restitute everything except Saint-Petersburg and the line of the Neva. But would it have been a real peace, or only a truce?
It would've been an arab-style "truce" wherein the next attack would've come the moment it was convenient for the perfidious Russians.
I'm not well-read enough to say whether this would've meant a need for peace against the Danes and Poles aswell, but I like that scenario regardless, since it gives Sweden a breather to rebuild finances and most importantly find allies against the next Russian attack.
Edit: Of course, I had to take a new look at the dates involved and I feel pretty embarrassed about my previous statement. I shall, however, leave it there as a testament to my poor memory. :blush: Regardless, I still like the idea of a 1707 peace treaty.
Hitler learned from the Swedes. You don't get any Uke support without first tossing the dogs some Jews to chew on. That is how Russians think.
Quote from: Drakken on June 29, 2009, 04:42:49 PM
:cry: :cry: :cry:
However, since we are now in alt-his territory, did Sweden really had a chance to topple Russia out of the war if it had invaded Russia after Narva, the collapse of Denmark and the peace of Travendal, instead of turning westward and anally raping Martinus' ancestors in Poland to dethrone Augustus of Saxony?
Also, there at least a possible white peace for Sweden in 1707 when Peter was ready to restitute everything except Saint-Petersburg and the line of the Neva. But would it have been a real peace, or only a truce?
Invading Russia in 1701 with Saxony still on the loose around Riga would have been dangerous. And AFAIK difficult. I suppose you would have had to march on Moscow meaning supply problems and not having the advantages of a reinforced army and prepared supply that existed in 1708. My guess is that it was not impossible, but also that improvising invasions of Russia with an unsecured flank isn't really healthy risktaking.
Regarding 1707, Russian access to the Baltic made Russia getting St Petersburg far from a white peace. Charles surrendering the entire Swedish strategic position in the Baltic would have been pretty weird at the height of his power after a great series of victories.
Quote from: Jaron on June 29, 2009, 07:31:26 PM
Hitler learned from the Swedes. You don't get any Uke support without first tossing the dogs some Jews to chew on. That is how Russians think.
Ukrainians are not Russian.
Quote from: Scipio on June 30, 2009, 11:54:35 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 29, 2009, 07:31:26 PM
Hitler learned from the Swedes. You don't get any Uke support without first tossing the dogs some Jews to chew on. That is how Russians think.
Ukrainians are not Russian.
To the minds of the hitlerites, they are both subhumans. :bleeding:
Quote from: Scipio on June 30, 2009, 11:54:35 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 29, 2009, 07:31:26 PM
Hitler learned from the Swedes. You don't get any Uke support without first tossing the dogs some Jews to chew on. That is how Russians think.
Ukrainians are not Russian.
Well not Great Russians. Just little Russians.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2009, 11:39:20 AM
Quote from: Drakken on June 29, 2009, 04:42:49 PM
:cry: :cry: :cry:
However, since we are now in alt-his territory, did Sweden really had a chance to topple Russia out of the war if it had invaded Russia after Narva, the collapse of Denmark and the peace of Travendal, instead of turning westward and anally raping Martinus' ancestors in Poland to dethrone Augustus of Saxony?
Also, there at least a possible white peace for Sweden in 1707 when Peter was ready to restitute everything except Saint-Petersburg and the line of the Neva. But would it have been a real peace, or only a truce?
Invading Russia in 1701 with Saxony still on the loose around Riga would have been dangerous. And AFAIK difficult. I suppose you would have had to march on Moscow meaning supply problems and not having the advantages of a reinforced army and prepared supply that existed in 1708. My guess is that it was not impossible, but also that improvising invasions of Russia with an unsecured flank isn't really healthy risktaking.
Regarding 1707, Russian access to the Baltic made Russia getting St Petersburg far from a white peace. Charles surrendering the entire Swedish strategic position in the Baltic would have been pretty weird at the height of his power after a great series of victories.
But in hindight, what were Charles's options? Charles' diplomatic abilities were not very stellar, basically it was all or nothing. Besides, the only way to keep all neutrals in check was to keep the Swedish army intact. You do not need to know Poltava to guess that the deal is sealed if Charles loses his army advantage.
That being said, to continue the war invading Russia is almost inevitable since they were the only opponent who had the means to sustain the war theorically indefinitely (or at least as long enough as Peter could keep his large number of domestic opponents in check).
An alternative strategy I can see is an "interior line" type of campaign, which means keeping the Army inside the Swedish territory and sacrificing initiative in favour of keeping the Army intact and close to his supply lines. And of course, paramount to this strategy is to burn Saint-Petersburg to the ground, scorch the banks of the Neva, then retreat. And this allows potentially for a more thorough puppetering of Poland-Lithuania.
It's all hindsight, of course, but in 1705-1707 Charles had enough leverage to work out something had he been patient.
If Charles was not such a moralizing Protestant fanatic he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated. It wouldn't have been hard. The war would instantly have been over.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:27:10 PM
If Charles was not such a moralizing Protestant fanatic egomaniacal moron he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated. It wouldn't have been hard. The war would instantly have been over.
Quote from: Scipio on June 30, 2009, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:27:10 PM
If Charles was not such a egomaniacal morno he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated. It wouldn't have been hard. The war would instantly have been over.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.urbandictionary.com%2Fimage%2Flarge%2Fmoran-7512.jpg&hash=015c19884eaa4963a6c13829b5001f9997626747)
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:27:10 PM
If Charles was not such a moralizing Protestant fanatic he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated. It wouldn't have been hard. The war would instantly have been over.
Or, even more simple, he would have taken advantage of the absolute disgust and contempt for Peter's love of foreigners by boyars and the Orthodox Church, by backing any coup orchestrated by the shitloads of priests and disaffected traditional noblemen who were absolutely not interested in Peter's view of Russia, especially opening their borders to foreigners and their influence, and who were by large opposed to Peter's warmongering against Sweden.
And they had a very good candidate for his replacement: Peter's son Alexei, who was notoriously oppositional to his father's policies also and a total puppet of the traditionals.
Charles might have made overtures along the line of : "Help us get rid of Peter and his cronies, put Alexis on the throne in the Kremlin, restitute what was ours ante bellum, and we'll let you return to your old ways in peace... with some minor compensations to be discussed afterwards". The boyars would have wet their beds with such a proposal, and it might have been enough to trigger insurrections. And it would have replaced a powerful leader like Peter by a total 3-3-3 pickle-monarch, which is always beneficial for Sweden if Charles wanted to resume war with Russia.
Sadly, even that was too complicated a plot for Charlie. :(
Interior lines would be difficult. Sweden didn't realistically have the resources to win a war of attrition with Russia. Not using the main Swedish asset (the field army) and instead using the major Swedish weakness (the tiny economic base) doesn't sound like win.
Regarding anti-Peter coups, the most powerful and realistic way of generating those was doing just what Charles was doing: marching on Moscow.
Rome would have marched on Moscow. And after Poltava it would have raised new armies and tried to have another go. Just like Charles. Rome is one hell of a role model.
Quote from: The Brain on July 01, 2009, 12:32:28 PM
Interior lines would be difficult. Sweden didn't realistically have the resources to win a war of attrition with Russia. Not using the main Swedish asset (the field army) and instead using the major Swedish weakness (the tiny economic base) doesn't sound like win.
Regarding anti-Peter coups, the most powerful and realistic way of generating those was doing just what Charles was doing: marching on Moscow.
Rome would have marched on Moscow. And after Poltava it would have raised new armies and tried to have another go. Just like Charles. Rome is one hell of a role model.
Rome =/ Sweden
Sweden doesn't have massive manpower reserves to risk on that kind of campaign.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 01, 2009, 12:32:28 PM
Interior lines would be difficult. Sweden didn't realistically have the resources to win a war of attrition with Russia. Not using the main Swedish asset (the field army) and instead using the major Swedish weakness (the tiny economic base) doesn't sound like win.
Regarding anti-Peter coups, the most powerful and realistic way of generating those was doing just what Charles was doing: marching on Moscow.
Rome would have marched on Moscow. And after Poltava it would have raised new armies and tried to have another go. Just like Charles. Rome is one hell of a role model.
Rome =/ Sweden
Sweden doesn't have massive manpower reserves to risk on that kind of campaign.
Rome played to win. So did Charles. That's the key. Coups and interior lines (waiting for Peter to die?) relies on luck or someone else to win the war for Sweden. If a person can show a way for Sweden to force a win without marching on Moscow I would be very happy to see it.