This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swedish Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 ( talk) 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenRG ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 October 2003 (UTC)
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.250 ( talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
==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)
Agreed - this is overdramatic - someone ought to tag it to be "conformed to a higher standard of quality" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.124.139 ( talk) 03:44, 7 November 2005 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.70.135 ( talk) 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.151.236 ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Sweden between 1611 and 1718, a period where it was a Great Power in Europe and thus often referred to as the Swedish Empire or Era of Great Power by Swedes. Note that it was never an actual Empire with an Emperor. Azaan H 06:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Then almost all countries in the world could be a empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.124.250 ( talk) 11:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.64.45 ( talk) 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.41.208 ( talk) 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Danish Empire. I see it plainly as an effect of Napoleon complex, that some Danes react so harshly against this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.188.163 ( talk) 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "Swedish Empire" is an invention on Wikipedia. There has never been a Swedish king styling himself "Emperor". The British Empire did indeed have an Emperor since their kings and queens were Emperors and Empresses of India. Even during its greatest extent as a Great Power Sweden did not contain "nations" (a 19th century concept). Finland was an integral part of Sweden. The parts conquered from Denmark were forcibly integrated into Sweden. Also, in the Baltic provinces the Swedish kings took great measures to undermine the political independence of the Baltic-German nobility and integrate into the Swedish system. The position of the Swedish king as lord of the German provinces was in fact that the German emperor was nominally his overlord with respect to those provinces. This article should be re-named as suggested above. It is not serious to make references to the "Swedish Empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 ( talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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... Jens S, Sweden—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 ( talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The section called "Peace of Oliva" contains some mathematical errors on the population density estimates: the second paragraph cites a land area of 1,100,000 km2 and a population of 2,500,000, and calculates the density at 5.6 people/km2. Just using those numbers, the average is 2.3 people/km2. I'm going to assume that the land area and population figures were correct, and go ahead and change the calculated density: let me know if I've assumed incorrectly. -Sven Bluejay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.129 ( talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Sweden is still a kingdom NakkiHousu ( talk) 05:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
Can anyone correct this image - 1616 should read 1660-- 94.173.208.118 ( talk) 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{help}} If I had rollback rights I would fix the latest two disruptive edits to the article by IP 88.108.31.204. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I edited this sentence:
"when Sweden officially ceded vast areas in current South-western Finland to emerging superpower"
Into: "when Sweden officially ceded vast areas in current South-eastern Finland to emerging superpower" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.70.209 ( talk) 07:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
IMHO I think this article needs quite a bit of revision because (a) generally seems quite disjointed and unclear (eg what's the "Dominions" section supposed to be about?) (b) but more fundamentally it seems to be more of an excerpt of Swedish history during the Great Power era. There's History of Sweden and spin-offs for that. I think there is a distinction to be made between talking about Sweden as a great power in the 17th century and specifically talking about the "Swedish Empire". One does not refer to the "Swedish Empire's" involvement in the Thirty Years War. References to the "Swedish Empire" in English are, I believe, generally limited to the issue of Swedish territorial control of the Baltic littoral.
Looking at the above posts, particularly from I suspect Swedish editors, I think this has been the cause of some confusion. I do not believe that English-language historiography refers to the "Swedish Empire" as a constitutional phase that Sweden went through, just as you might refer to the German Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire etc. It's more a thematic reference to one particular facet of Sweden during the Great Power era: i.e. its acquisition of Baltic teritories. At least. that's the case in English-language literature.
I think this article should be refocused on what was comprised within the "Empire" and how the Empire developed territorially. So I have in mind three sections: Origins (a brief introduction to Sweden and its territorial expansion prior to Gustavus Adolphus); History (a narrative from Gustavus Adolphus of how the territories were acquired and the eventual partial break-up after the Great Northern War.); Territories (a brief description of each of the territories - mainly an intro for a link to the main article on that territory).
Does anyone have a contrary view? I'll leave this up for a couple of weeks (as this article doesn't seem to get much traffic) before spending any time putting this into effect. DeCausa ( talk) 13:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Swedish Empire → Great Sweden – To conform better to what the Swedes themselves call it. No king of Sweden has ever been called an emperor, thus no empire has actually existed. The term "Swedish Empire" is a misleading invention that does not deserve to be maintained or disseminated further. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The infobox states "Today part of" and lists Togo and the United States. Where is this mentioned in the body of the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced for 2 months, I removed it from the infobox. Sweden at this time didn't have any religious freedom and the state certainly didn't recognize any minorty religion as strict High Church Lutheranism was practised. That is not to say that religious minorities didn't exist in eastern parts of the empire but their religion wasn't official. Shellwood ( talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This article lists the government of the Swedish Empire as absolute monarchy, which I as a Swede find a bit peculiar since parlamentarism was fairly strong in the country for most of this time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.238.118 ( talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sweden at this time did have more power given to their King than any other time in Sweden (after Carolus Rex died, the country become a Constitutional Monarchy again) but yes they were not an Absolute Monarchy in any way. Azaan H 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"the empire was controlled for lengthy periods by part of the high nobility, most prominently the Oxenstierna family, acting as tutors for minor regents."
This makes no sense. I think that someone is confused about what a "regent" is. Lathamibird ( talk) 23:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That flag is more like Sweden's war flag... Usually the modern flag that is used right now is used, just with darker blue. NakkiHousu ( talk) 06:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The article on Charles XII lists his titles as:
"We Charles, by the Grace of God King of Sweden, the Goths and the Vends, Grand Prince of Finland, Duke of Scania, Estonia, Livonia and Karelia, Lord of Ingria, Duke of Bremen, Verden and Pomerania, Prince of Rügen and Lord of Wismar, and also Count Palatine by the Rhine, Duke in Bavaria, Count of Zweibrücken–Kleeburg, as well as Duke of Jülich, Cleve and Berg, Count of Veldenz, Spanheim and Ravensberg and Lord of Ravenstein.[5]"
This implies the Swedish empire was in a personal union with most of what is now Germany, so why isn't that part included on the map of its maximum extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:20C:7500:84C5:4609:E521:305F ( talk) 17:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I have issues with this article similar to what Peter Isotalo raised above. To my mind, this article seems to combine two quite distinct concepts under this heading:
Both these concepts can be useful, but mixing them is rather like trying to describe the British empire and the Victorian Era in the same article. There are quite a few things in that becomes needlessly unclear and confusing as a result.
Andejons ( talk) 07:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with the removal of this infobox. Having an infobox that shows what the Kingdom of Sweden was like during this era is helpful for readers, and is present on plenty of other articles discussing historical eras. Also, there was an actual change of governance upon the end of the Swedish Empire: from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary, constitutional one.
None of the actual information in the article needs to change, but I believe an infobox would be a great addition. 296cherry ( talk) 15:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Country infobox
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I made some final changes to the infobox I created in the prior discussion and added it to the main article. All information in the box is backed either by citations, Wikipedia Commons pages, or by the article itself. Below is my explanation for the changes I made from the infobox that was deleted from the article to the new one:
Explanation
|
---|
native_name/conventional_long_name → Changed from "Swedish Empire" to "Kingdom of Sweden". The former refers to the era, while the latter refers to the actual name of the state. Prevents confusion between the two terms.
government_type → Changed from "absolute monarchy" to varying dates of both constitutional and absolute monarchy (plus several citations). The previous term was inaccurate. events → Changed from only the start and end of the era to multiple new events in between them. Adds depth and accuracy. flag and symbol → Changed to accurate images with specified dates. image_map_caption → Changed from "Swedish Empire" to "Kingdom of Sweden during the Empire era". Refer to changes made to native_name/conventional_long_name. official_languages/common_languages → Sourced the list of languages and added several new ones. Also differentiated between official and other languages. Accuracy and depth change. currency → Added a note explaining a change in standard of currency. Depth edit. leader1 → Changed from "Gustav II Adolph" to "Gustavus Adolphus". No reason to use the English name, especially since it isn't used anywhere else in the article. stat_pop1 → Added a "~" in order to clarify that the value is an estimate. |
296cherry ( talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that the statement in the lead, which proclaims that Sweden is the only Nordic country to have reached great power status, is accurate. Firstly, I can't find where it states anything like that in the citations provided (granted, the first one is locked behind a paywall so I can't know for sure). Also, several sources [1] [2] [3] support the notion that Denmark–Norway was, at certain points, one of the European great powers as well. Should the statement be removed or perhaps rephrased to state "Sweden was the only Nordic great power besides Denmark-Norway"?
References
296cherry ( talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the flag from the infobox since it's clearly misleading our readers in believing that early modern Sweden actually had an "official" flag. I don't see the same problem with the coat of arms, though I'm in favor of skipping that as well.
The major problem with this article topic and the infobox is that it represent a historical period but due to it's English name is basically masquarading as some sort of distinct and separate state entity.
I welcome discussion regarding this, but I'm strongly opposed to including any kind of flag in an infobox since the presentation is based on how modern states and their flags function. There's also the option of simply removing the infobox altogether since it's not intended for historical periods in the first place. Peter Isotalo 18:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject is considered an empire, not a time period, in English usage. If that is against the liking of enough users, I welcome a proposed name change to something else. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
A move request from Swedish Empire was closed as declined due to strong opposition un 2012 and nothing has changed since then. The revert-upon-revert made now is arbitrary POV, to try to put it diplomatically. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been browsing the references used in the article and I'm having difficulties pinning down where the current title has been taken from. Which cited sources actually use the term "Swedish Empire"? Peter Isotalo 23:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2A02:1406:1:23F7:39FA:4650:1DC0:291B ( talk) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)The
KingdomSwedish Empireduring the Empire eraat its height in 1658...
My understanding of the problem:
(1) The Swedish language word (stormaktstiden) for the subject of the article is time period based.
(2) The English language term (empire) for the subject is largely geographically based.
This difference between the two languages requires slightly different handling. Therefore here in English Wikipedia, for easy conceptual flow, the article should start a definition by giving the geographical limits and then the time period. It is not my concern how Swedish Wikipedia handles the matter, but I would guess that the opposite applies there. There are further consequences of the different terminology in the two languages elsewhere in the article, but none of these are particularly difficult to solve.
As a start, I suggest the opening of the article should read something like:
The Swedish Empire ( Swedish: stormaktstiden, "the Era of Great Power") extended over a large part of the Baltic region during much of the 17th and early 18th centuries. At its greatest extent, it included [concise summary of the major added components needed here]. This gave Sweden the status of a European great power. The empire is usually taken to originate in the reign of Gustavus Adolphus, who ascended the throne in 1611, and its end as the loss of territories in 1721 following the Great Northern War.
I have left the description of the major components blank as there could be extensive discussions of how to name those elements (historic versus modern day identifiers) which are not really part of the point I am trying to make here.
I feel the word empire is well enough understood not to require definition – in detail there are a number of different sorts of empire (possibly as many as the number of empires?). This article should go on to describe sufficient of the characteristics to make clear the type of empire it covers. Perhaps the lead should make more clear that this empire originated largely (?entirely?) from conquest. The second paragraph of the lead would seem to fit better into a separate section titled "Historical background".
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Today's Sweden is very different from the state that elected Gustav I as king in 1523, but there has never been a clean break with the past in the form of a revolution, radically new constitution or new form of government.? If that is meant to signify some sort of definition of an empire, it can be argued against with great ease – at its most concise, Sweden's empire ended on the battlefield. Any more than that and we will be back on the OR merry-go-round. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo, you are narrowing the question asked in the heading of the section. This started as a request for sources that support the title of the article. I see that User:296cherry has given us such a source in the post made below. This is Roberts, Michael. The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560–1718 (The Wiles Lectures). The word "empire" is used liberally throughout this work, but here is one extract (page 27) "Thus the Swedish Empire was, after all, an empire of exploitation and enterprise, though not of private enterprise." (It is in a comparison with other contemporary empires, a prominent theme in the book.) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Aside from some capital E's (which should go) what should be done about this arbitrary and undiscussed reversal? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 15:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what definition we're operating from. Does "Swedish Empire" refer to:
A) A historical period/era, doesn't refer to state structure. [1]
B) An actual state entity (even if it wasn't called an empire at the time of its existence) [2] [3] [4] [5]
Both definitions seem supported by various sources (although I found a lot more for option B).
References |
|
296cherry ( talk) 17:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
-- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I cannot see how it could be an improvement to remove a gallery which is warranted in this case for concise comprehensive info to the reader about who the monarchs were during this period. It takes some work to put a gallery together (with images other than those in the text). Easy-peasy to waltz in and trash it. Reverted removal. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This unneccessary reversal leads to the assumption that the use of the word "of" is not fully understood by some editors from Sweden, where the Swedish word av can be distracting when writing in Engish. In both examples "Authors of the United States" or "Authors of the Elizabethan era" the English word "of" is used quite correctly. The heading, as currently worded after this reversal, now makes the gallery look irrelevant. I will reverse this unless someone can give us a good reason not to. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I oppose the arbitrary, unsourced inclusion of King Charles IX as a monarch of the Swedish Empire. He was not that. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed the infobox. This article is not about a former country but a historical period. There's an ongoing dispute about the scope of the article and there are exactly zero sources to support the idea of a separate state entity called the "Swedish Empire". The infobox is attracting all kinds of facts of dubious relevance, especially the idea that a 17th century state of any kind had "official" flags, languages, currency, etc. Claims like this are assuming that official standards existed at all hundreds of years ago.
On top of this, the presence of the infobox is skewing the article towards the unsupported claim of a separate, distinct state entity that supposedly popped into being at one point and then disappeared.
I don't believe the article can be described as neutral as long as it includes a former country infobox. Peter Isotalo 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
What we do have is definite frequency where the period in English is called the Swedish Empire by a majority of academic sources. The rest is, and is likely to remain, unclear. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swedish Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 ( talk) 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenRG ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 October 2003 (UTC)
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.250 ( talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
==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)
Agreed - this is overdramatic - someone ought to tag it to be "conformed to a higher standard of quality" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.124.139 ( talk) 03:44, 7 November 2005 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.70.135 ( talk) 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.151.236 ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Sweden between 1611 and 1718, a period where it was a Great Power in Europe and thus often referred to as the Swedish Empire or Era of Great Power by Swedes. Note that it was never an actual Empire with an Emperor. Azaan H 06:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Then almost all countries in the world could be a empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.124.250 ( talk) 11:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.64.45 ( talk) 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.41.208 ( talk) 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Danish Empire. I see it plainly as an effect of Napoleon complex, that some Danes react so harshly against this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.188.163 ( talk) 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "Swedish Empire" is an invention on Wikipedia. There has never been a Swedish king styling himself "Emperor". The British Empire did indeed have an Emperor since their kings and queens were Emperors and Empresses of India. Even during its greatest extent as a Great Power Sweden did not contain "nations" (a 19th century concept). Finland was an integral part of Sweden. The parts conquered from Denmark were forcibly integrated into Sweden. Also, in the Baltic provinces the Swedish kings took great measures to undermine the political independence of the Baltic-German nobility and integrate into the Swedish system. The position of the Swedish king as lord of the German provinces was in fact that the German emperor was nominally his overlord with respect to those provinces. This article should be re-named as suggested above. It is not serious to make references to the "Swedish Empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 ( talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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... Jens S, Sweden—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 ( talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The section called "Peace of Oliva" contains some mathematical errors on the population density estimates: the second paragraph cites a land area of 1,100,000 km2 and a population of 2,500,000, and calculates the density at 5.6 people/km2. Just using those numbers, the average is 2.3 people/km2. I'm going to assume that the land area and population figures were correct, and go ahead and change the calculated density: let me know if I've assumed incorrectly. -Sven Bluejay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.129 ( talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Sweden is still a kingdom NakkiHousu ( talk) 05:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
Can anyone correct this image - 1616 should read 1660-- 94.173.208.118 ( talk) 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{help}} If I had rollback rights I would fix the latest two disruptive edits to the article by IP 88.108.31.204. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I edited this sentence:
"when Sweden officially ceded vast areas in current South-western Finland to emerging superpower"
Into: "when Sweden officially ceded vast areas in current South-eastern Finland to emerging superpower" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.70.209 ( talk) 07:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
IMHO I think this article needs quite a bit of revision because (a) generally seems quite disjointed and unclear (eg what's the "Dominions" section supposed to be about?) (b) but more fundamentally it seems to be more of an excerpt of Swedish history during the Great Power era. There's History of Sweden and spin-offs for that. I think there is a distinction to be made between talking about Sweden as a great power in the 17th century and specifically talking about the "Swedish Empire". One does not refer to the "Swedish Empire's" involvement in the Thirty Years War. References to the "Swedish Empire" in English are, I believe, generally limited to the issue of Swedish territorial control of the Baltic littoral.
Looking at the above posts, particularly from I suspect Swedish editors, I think this has been the cause of some confusion. I do not believe that English-language historiography refers to the "Swedish Empire" as a constitutional phase that Sweden went through, just as you might refer to the German Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire etc. It's more a thematic reference to one particular facet of Sweden during the Great Power era: i.e. its acquisition of Baltic teritories. At least. that's the case in English-language literature.
I think this article should be refocused on what was comprised within the "Empire" and how the Empire developed territorially. So I have in mind three sections: Origins (a brief introduction to Sweden and its territorial expansion prior to Gustavus Adolphus); History (a narrative from Gustavus Adolphus of how the territories were acquired and the eventual partial break-up after the Great Northern War.); Territories (a brief description of each of the territories - mainly an intro for a link to the main article on that territory).
Does anyone have a contrary view? I'll leave this up for a couple of weeks (as this article doesn't seem to get much traffic) before spending any time putting this into effect. DeCausa ( talk) 13:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Swedish Empire → Great Sweden – To conform better to what the Swedes themselves call it. No king of Sweden has ever been called an emperor, thus no empire has actually existed. The term "Swedish Empire" is a misleading invention that does not deserve to be maintained or disseminated further. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The infobox states "Today part of" and lists Togo and the United States. Where is this mentioned in the body of the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced for 2 months, I removed it from the infobox. Sweden at this time didn't have any religious freedom and the state certainly didn't recognize any minorty religion as strict High Church Lutheranism was practised. That is not to say that religious minorities didn't exist in eastern parts of the empire but their religion wasn't official. Shellwood ( talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This article lists the government of the Swedish Empire as absolute monarchy, which I as a Swede find a bit peculiar since parlamentarism was fairly strong in the country for most of this time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.238.118 ( talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sweden at this time did have more power given to their King than any other time in Sweden (after Carolus Rex died, the country become a Constitutional Monarchy again) but yes they were not an Absolute Monarchy in any way. Azaan H 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"the empire was controlled for lengthy periods by part of the high nobility, most prominently the Oxenstierna family, acting as tutors for minor regents."
This makes no sense. I think that someone is confused about what a "regent" is. Lathamibird ( talk) 23:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That flag is more like Sweden's war flag... Usually the modern flag that is used right now is used, just with darker blue. NakkiHousu ( talk) 06:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The article on Charles XII lists his titles as:
"We Charles, by the Grace of God King of Sweden, the Goths and the Vends, Grand Prince of Finland, Duke of Scania, Estonia, Livonia and Karelia, Lord of Ingria, Duke of Bremen, Verden and Pomerania, Prince of Rügen and Lord of Wismar, and also Count Palatine by the Rhine, Duke in Bavaria, Count of Zweibrücken–Kleeburg, as well as Duke of Jülich, Cleve and Berg, Count of Veldenz, Spanheim and Ravensberg and Lord of Ravenstein.[5]"
This implies the Swedish empire was in a personal union with most of what is now Germany, so why isn't that part included on the map of its maximum extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:20C:7500:84C5:4609:E521:305F ( talk) 17:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I have issues with this article similar to what Peter Isotalo raised above. To my mind, this article seems to combine two quite distinct concepts under this heading:
Both these concepts can be useful, but mixing them is rather like trying to describe the British empire and the Victorian Era in the same article. There are quite a few things in that becomes needlessly unclear and confusing as a result.
Andejons ( talk) 07:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with the removal of this infobox. Having an infobox that shows what the Kingdom of Sweden was like during this era is helpful for readers, and is present on plenty of other articles discussing historical eras. Also, there was an actual change of governance upon the end of the Swedish Empire: from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary, constitutional one.
None of the actual information in the article needs to change, but I believe an infobox would be a great addition. 296cherry ( talk) 15:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Country infobox
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I made some final changes to the infobox I created in the prior discussion and added it to the main article. All information in the box is backed either by citations, Wikipedia Commons pages, or by the article itself. Below is my explanation for the changes I made from the infobox that was deleted from the article to the new one:
Explanation
|
---|
native_name/conventional_long_name → Changed from "Swedish Empire" to "Kingdom of Sweden". The former refers to the era, while the latter refers to the actual name of the state. Prevents confusion between the two terms.
government_type → Changed from "absolute monarchy" to varying dates of both constitutional and absolute monarchy (plus several citations). The previous term was inaccurate. events → Changed from only the start and end of the era to multiple new events in between them. Adds depth and accuracy. flag and symbol → Changed to accurate images with specified dates. image_map_caption → Changed from "Swedish Empire" to "Kingdom of Sweden during the Empire era". Refer to changes made to native_name/conventional_long_name. official_languages/common_languages → Sourced the list of languages and added several new ones. Also differentiated between official and other languages. Accuracy and depth change. currency → Added a note explaining a change in standard of currency. Depth edit. leader1 → Changed from "Gustav II Adolph" to "Gustavus Adolphus". No reason to use the English name, especially since it isn't used anywhere else in the article. stat_pop1 → Added a "~" in order to clarify that the value is an estimate. |
296cherry ( talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that the statement in the lead, which proclaims that Sweden is the only Nordic country to have reached great power status, is accurate. Firstly, I can't find where it states anything like that in the citations provided (granted, the first one is locked behind a paywall so I can't know for sure). Also, several sources [1] [2] [3] support the notion that Denmark–Norway was, at certain points, one of the European great powers as well. Should the statement be removed or perhaps rephrased to state "Sweden was the only Nordic great power besides Denmark-Norway"?
References
296cherry ( talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the flag from the infobox since it's clearly misleading our readers in believing that early modern Sweden actually had an "official" flag. I don't see the same problem with the coat of arms, though I'm in favor of skipping that as well.
The major problem with this article topic and the infobox is that it represent a historical period but due to it's English name is basically masquarading as some sort of distinct and separate state entity.
I welcome discussion regarding this, but I'm strongly opposed to including any kind of flag in an infobox since the presentation is based on how modern states and their flags function. There's also the option of simply removing the infobox altogether since it's not intended for historical periods in the first place. Peter Isotalo 18:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject is considered an empire, not a time period, in English usage. If that is against the liking of enough users, I welcome a proposed name change to something else. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
A move request from Swedish Empire was closed as declined due to strong opposition un 2012 and nothing has changed since then. The revert-upon-revert made now is arbitrary POV, to try to put it diplomatically. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been browsing the references used in the article and I'm having difficulties pinning down where the current title has been taken from. Which cited sources actually use the term "Swedish Empire"? Peter Isotalo 23:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2A02:1406:1:23F7:39FA:4650:1DC0:291B ( talk) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)The
KingdomSwedish Empireduring the Empire eraat its height in 1658...
My understanding of the problem:
(1) The Swedish language word (stormaktstiden) for the subject of the article is time period based.
(2) The English language term (empire) for the subject is largely geographically based.
This difference between the two languages requires slightly different handling. Therefore here in English Wikipedia, for easy conceptual flow, the article should start a definition by giving the geographical limits and then the time period. It is not my concern how Swedish Wikipedia handles the matter, but I would guess that the opposite applies there. There are further consequences of the different terminology in the two languages elsewhere in the article, but none of these are particularly difficult to solve.
As a start, I suggest the opening of the article should read something like:
The Swedish Empire ( Swedish: stormaktstiden, "the Era of Great Power") extended over a large part of the Baltic region during much of the 17th and early 18th centuries. At its greatest extent, it included [concise summary of the major added components needed here]. This gave Sweden the status of a European great power. The empire is usually taken to originate in the reign of Gustavus Adolphus, who ascended the throne in 1611, and its end as the loss of territories in 1721 following the Great Northern War.
I have left the description of the major components blank as there could be extensive discussions of how to name those elements (historic versus modern day identifiers) which are not really part of the point I am trying to make here.
I feel the word empire is well enough understood not to require definition – in detail there are a number of different sorts of empire (possibly as many as the number of empires?). This article should go on to describe sufficient of the characteristics to make clear the type of empire it covers. Perhaps the lead should make more clear that this empire originated largely (?entirely?) from conquest. The second paragraph of the lead would seem to fit better into a separate section titled "Historical background".
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Today's Sweden is very different from the state that elected Gustav I as king in 1523, but there has never been a clean break with the past in the form of a revolution, radically new constitution or new form of government.? If that is meant to signify some sort of definition of an empire, it can be argued against with great ease – at its most concise, Sweden's empire ended on the battlefield. Any more than that and we will be back on the OR merry-go-round. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo, you are narrowing the question asked in the heading of the section. This started as a request for sources that support the title of the article. I see that User:296cherry has given us such a source in the post made below. This is Roberts, Michael. The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560–1718 (The Wiles Lectures). The word "empire" is used liberally throughout this work, but here is one extract (page 27) "Thus the Swedish Empire was, after all, an empire of exploitation and enterprise, though not of private enterprise." (It is in a comparison with other contemporary empires, a prominent theme in the book.) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Aside from some capital E's (which should go) what should be done about this arbitrary and undiscussed reversal? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 15:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what definition we're operating from. Does "Swedish Empire" refer to:
A) A historical period/era, doesn't refer to state structure. [1]
B) An actual state entity (even if it wasn't called an empire at the time of its existence) [2] [3] [4] [5]
Both definitions seem supported by various sources (although I found a lot more for option B).
References |
|
296cherry ( talk) 17:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
-- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I cannot see how it could be an improvement to remove a gallery which is warranted in this case for concise comprehensive info to the reader about who the monarchs were during this period. It takes some work to put a gallery together (with images other than those in the text). Easy-peasy to waltz in and trash it. Reverted removal. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This unneccessary reversal leads to the assumption that the use of the word "of" is not fully understood by some editors from Sweden, where the Swedish word av can be distracting when writing in Engish. In both examples "Authors of the United States" or "Authors of the Elizabethan era" the English word "of" is used quite correctly. The heading, as currently worded after this reversal, now makes the gallery look irrelevant. I will reverse this unless someone can give us a good reason not to. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I oppose the arbitrary, unsourced inclusion of King Charles IX as a monarch of the Swedish Empire. He was not that. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed the infobox. This article is not about a former country but a historical period. There's an ongoing dispute about the scope of the article and there are exactly zero sources to support the idea of a separate state entity called the "Swedish Empire". The infobox is attracting all kinds of facts of dubious relevance, especially the idea that a 17th century state of any kind had "official" flags, languages, currency, etc. Claims like this are assuming that official standards existed at all hundreds of years ago.
On top of this, the presence of the infobox is skewing the article towards the unsupported claim of a separate, distinct state entity that supposedly popped into being at one point and then disappeared.
I don't believe the article can be described as neutral as long as it includes a former country infobox. Peter Isotalo 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
What we do have is definite frequency where the period in English is called the Swedish Empire by a majority of academic sources. The rest is, and is likely to remain, unclear. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)