/swedeaboo/ thread

We should instead be proud of systems that don't acknowledge the humanity of its Workers, and burn through them like lamp oil, despite being a socialized union of Workers

>kills millions during its existence
>invents horrific torture practices
>steals cultural artefacts, books and resources from Baltics, Poland, Germany, Russia and Finland
Fuck Sw*dish *mpire

Swedish """"empire"""" oppressed Finnish culture. Fuck it.

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

> confiscated wealth from nobles.
They also confiscated a lot of wealth from their enemies. And then killed them. And then unironically did the same with Swedish allies.

Its quite interesting but pretty overhyped I guess. Basically Created the Gustavian infantry and bullied Poland a few times. Had a few skirmishes with the Danes and then just got rolled back by Russia and never did anything ever again.

Punched well above your weight for a while though

Still the French won the thirty years war

>granted increased rights to peasants
At the point of a crossbow mate

>baltics
German nobles in Estonia asked for Swedish protection.
>Poland and Germany
True.
>Russia
I've never heard of it being done in Russia but it's not unlikely.
>Finland
What? Finland was conquered in the 12th century and they were just pagan tribes... Not much art to steal there unless you mean painted rocks.
Yes.
Nope. It was mainly Charles XI who increased rights with his reforms.

Hmm. I was actually under the impression that serfdom was never actually implemented in Sweden actually.

What was the rebellion where all the farmers took up their crossbows?

Engelbrekt rebellion in 1434 against the Kalmar Union under the German king Erik of Pomerania. They overthrew him and ended the first Kalmar Union.

Danes at the time desu

Is there any regret at having dismantled rather than reorganising Kalmar? Seems like a united Scandinavia would have been a great power most of the time

United Scandinavia would have been cool but I think we're better off on our own. The second Kalmar Union was also pretty shit, the king was batshit insane.

Sorry my memory's pretty shit. 2nd Kalmar was the one where the Wittlesbach was in for 4 years? Its always super annoyed me in EU4 actually. Just the mechanics of it.

How did the 2nd Kalmar come about?

I mean the reality is that Scandenavia may as well be Something like the UK but with individual kings and parliments. Pretty good deals with each other. Just I mean the etire area has basically just gotten bullied for 200 years although Sweden has been pretty untouched

Got any reee'ing Danish wojacks?

>>What? Finland was conquered in the 12th century and they were just pagan tribes... Not much art to steal there unless you mean painted rocks.
>implying Finland wasn't a target for crushing taxation that caused horrible and long-lasting famines as well as violent conscription that robbed entire towns from its male inhabitants
BUT HURP DURP NO CULTURAL ARTEFACTS, conveniently forgetting I included "resources". Fucking Sw*des.

It could have been worse man

Did someone say
>Stormaktstid?

Maybe you should listen to more Sabaton and realize how glorious it is to die for a bloodthirsty kings far away from home :^)

Second Kalmar Union came about when the danish king Kristian II, known as "the tyrant" here, conquered Sweden and immediatly executed the royalty and a lot of the nobles, raised taxes, so on. One noble who survived and lost his family started a rebellion that became the liberation war. Unfortunately he also raised taxes and was a little off the hooks but hey.
The same things happened in Sweden though. And Finland was a part of Sweden so why shouldn't they have taken the resources they found?

The founder of The Kievan rus was a _______?

finnish kang

Varangian. Technically Swedish, but not really.

>Varangians got RUS'D and assimilated into the population. Yes, that's right, even back then Swedes were cucks.

Finnish

>Varangians got RUS'D and assimilated into the population. Yes, that's right, even back then Swedes were cucks.
Rus rulers had norse names for a century.

They were destined to assimilate sooner or later because of them being such a small minority in the area

>Jews are destined to assimilate sooner or later because..
>Gypsies are destined to assimilate sooner or later because
something something small minority.

For those who haven't heard it yet.

Extra History is doing a series on the Great Northern War right now. I hope it finally gets some more attention now.

Besides that Gustavus Adolphus has a shit ton of shit attributed to him that he didn't really invent or introduce so his father of modern armies title is a bit misused.

Plenty of jews assimilate. Gypsies refuse to enter society and prefer begging outside of local stores to applying for welfare.

Totally fair comparison

Sweden proper never implemented serfdom, the country still had poor peasants and peasant unrest though.

Jews actually assimilated pretty well when they were allowed to though. Too bad Christians and anti-semites went full autismo.

It's hard to be a swedeaboo and see what a travesty it's turned into. I don't even bother mentioning my swedish muh heritage.

Why did the Danes do but the Swedish not? When did it happen in Denmark?

I mean wouldn't the nobles power be a little, limited in Sweden with no Serfs to conscript? Why wouldn't the peasants just refuse if they tried to conscript them?

Frankly I don't know enough to give a good answer especially in regards to Denmark. But historian Dick Harrison describes in an article that some Swedish nobility effectively tried to implement serfdom in part of Småland, but, partially as a result of the black plague, the peasants were just too demographically dominant and they lacked the military andd economic power to implement the changes.

It might be noteworthy that in Sweden peasants were actually by law required to own weapons so that they might be raised to defend their region. There were real problems for the state when peasants refused to be conscripted or made private peace with peasants across the border.

By the time of the actual Swedish Empire the country was fairly centralised and effectively administrated by general European standards (which was absolutely necessary for such a sparsely populated and poor country to perform well) and power increasingly laid in the hands of the state bureaucracy rather than the nobility. Other classes besides the nobility also exercised power through the general estates. So I guess you wouldn't be wrong to say that their power was limited.

I don't know how it is in other countries but in Swedish history as a whole there isn't a lot of focus put on nobles as a social class, it's more the king vs the peasants than anything. Though our history is also dominated by important nobles as individuals like Tortensson and Axel Oxenstierna.

The biggest exception to this is probably the regency and queen Christina's period where the nobility were able to wield a lot more power and amass more land under themselves. But this was rolled back by Karl X and Karl XI that followed.

>And Finland was a part of Sweden so why shouldn't they have taken the resources they found?

Because those resources belonged to the Finnish people, not some rich bloodthirsty king in Stockholm.

Well I'm very sorry but if you find valuable resources on your territory you use them. If the finns wanted those resources, they should have taken up arms.

>If the finns wanted those resources, they should have taken up arms.

Lol big surprise that you get might makes right squirming from swede apologists. Swedish """"empire"""" was evil if that is all it can do to defend its oppression.

I don't generally hold a might makes right view. I just meant they could/should have done it if it was so horrible. I also realize Sweden did a lot of bad things like the deluge and atrocities during the 30 years war but I don't understand how taking resources from land that is currently part of your kingdom is oppressive or evil.

>they could/should have done it if it was so horrible
Actually in hindsight i realize that this perfectly sums up a might makes right mentality. Sorry. But I don't think taking resources from land that had been Swedish for hundreds of years was oppressive enough for them to feel the need to revolt.

>was oppressive enough for them to feel the need to revolt.

Dunno, I see that the main reason that Finns didn't revolt often is that Swedes suppressed Finnish culture efficiently so that there wasn't any Finnish identity to rally around. You see how later during Russian rule Finns were ready to revolt even though Russian rule was infinitely better for Finns than Swedish rule.

>Dunno, I see that the main reason that Finns didn't revolt often is that Swedes suppressed Finnish culture efficiently so that there wasn't any Finnish identity to rally around
There also was the problem of population and the fact that the parts which could have risen up against Swedish rule were levied at swordpoint to join Swedish forces.

I prefer the term Sveaboo.

Please respect my nouns :)

sup swede cucks, whats going on in this thread?

Feels bad man

>sewedeaboo
>Not ikeaboo

>Charles attempts Deluge 2 after Narva instead of pursuing the Russian army
has there ever been a bigger mistake?