It's pretty funny that Rehnskiöld never gets any credit, despite being the actual military brain behind the early Swedish victories. When his king wanted to attack Narva he was the guy who drew up the plan and disposed the troops and coordinated the attack, He would do the same at Dvina and Klizow although increasingly the king grew into personal command.
You make is seem like the swedes were the favorites, they were heavily outnumbered and attacking a dug in foe. Led by an 18 year old king they were definately the underdog going in to the battle. Loved the reaction as usual!
You are right. However, the Russian troops were abandoned by their tsar, they did not have competent commanders. The artillery was useless. In addition, the Swedish soldiers were much better armed and trained. Therefore, I think that if the Swedes did not have an advantage, then at least the battle could be equal.
@@vincentL.7 even with scorched earth tactics the only reason the swedish lost the battle of poltava is because carolus was unavailable to take command and overconfident generals
@@Какой-тоКактус "abandoned by their tsar" It was virtually only Swedish kings that led their armies in Europe. The rest kept a safe distance. They were in a entrenched position and had plenty of artillery and outnumbered the Swedes 4-1, the difference comes down to the Swedes being well trained soldiers while the mass of the Russians were conscripted levies. Hadn't the winter storm covered the Swedish approach they would likely have been able to resist better. Untrained people are prone to panic when they don't feel their side is in control.
The administrative reforms of Karl XI were so impressive that after the destruction of the Swedish army at Poltava, it took less than 6 months to train, equip, recruit new officers and mobilize a whole new army to defend Skåne from Denmark and then counterattack into Northern Germany, led by the legendary Magnus Stenbock who still stands as a statue in Helsingborg where he crushed the danish army.
Staten var efter stormaktstiden väldigt oroliga, då de tillochmed ansåg att det var farligt/pinsamt att erkänna sveriges population, som var lite större än 2 miljoner (finland inräknat)
Dragoons started off as mounted infantry, musketeeers given cheap nags so they could keep up with cavalry columns on raiding expeditions. That was how they began around the time of the 30 Years War and English Civil War. But by now the horses were better and while the soldiers in the regiments carried carbines they also trained to fight mounted in a charge. Swedish dragoons largely operated as shock cavalry, though there were times they dismounted to skirmish in difficult terrain. Russian dragoons were more inclined to dismount and shoot, though they sometimes fought on their horses; but the Russian army was more inclined to firepower and less to shock than the Swedes and that probably explains the preference of their dragoons for firepower to some extent.
The weather played an important role in this battle. Also part of the reason why the King of Sweden confiscated so much land from the nobility in Livonia was the Allotment System, where soldiers were given land in return for military service. The Swedish nobility were not as strong as other countries, and this kind of thing had already happened in mainland Sweden. It was different from feudalism because the soldiers didnt actually own the land but I think the state did. The soldiers would farm the land in peacetime.
8:09 That is wrong. Scania (Skåne) was signed over to Sweden in the peace treaty with Denmark in 1658, during the rule of Karl X Gustav. The Scanian War in the 1670's was about Denmark trying to take it back, but failing to do so.
Livonia was wealthy because of the ancient inland trade route to Byzantium from Riga (called the Dvina-Dnieper navigation route) founded by the Vikings.
Pori County Infantry Regiment (finnish) During the Great Northern War of 1700-1721, the regiment took part in the battles of Narva , Poltava and Napue , among others, and in the Norwegian expedition . It was re-established several times during the war after being destroyed in non-existent battles or diseases. "Sons of a people whose blood was shed, On the field of Narva; Polish sand; at Leipzig; on Lützen's dark hills; Not yet is Finland defeated; With the blood of foes a field may still be tinted red!"
Oh cool, finally a video I like to watch. Thanks for doing the history stuff again, I appriciate you (and your channel) so much. I hope you have a great day!!
Charles lost 667 killed and around 1,200 wounded. Russian losses were approximately 10,000 killed and 20,000 captured. Let's hope those stats will be in favor of Sweden/Finland if the old foe reappears. Sweden has been in at least 12 wars with Russia since the he 12th century. And i have heard somewhere, that 13 is an unlucky nummer... 🙏
Battle of Narva 30/11 1700 Carolus Rex age 18 ,relief army (he led himself ,was outnumbered 1:10 but succeded to attack and after a copule of hours Our Ancestors could celebrate the Victory. The Battle of Narva was a terrible defeat for the Russian army total 18000 men lost their lives on the Swedish side lost abt 700.
@@lahire4943 Swedish and Russian have contradictory figures,According to History professor Dick Harrisson, Lund the Russian Losses were 9000, and the number of Russian prisoners so many that after they left their weapons and batleflaggs the rest of the Russian officers and soldiers could return to the east, tsar Peter himself left 1 day before the battle the carolean fighting technics and tactics together with the harsh dicipline made the swedes at that time one of the best Armies in Europe
Kings and Generals is my fave new channel... they go deeper into the actual battle tactics and stuff. I've already binged the Roman Civil War series and the Alexander the Great series. I highly recommend them.
Carolus Rex is one of the greatest underdogs of all time...you might see Sweden at this time as the great power guaranteed to win wars against their enemies, but everything was against Carolus Rex, it was pretty much his luck and his stoic nature that got him as far as he did in the war.
The HistoryMarche video on this subject seems like a good companion piece. Battle of Narva, 1700 ⚔ How did Sweden break the Russian army? ⚔ Great Nothern War HistoryMarche th-cam.com/video/8JG0W2o8ULs/w-d-xo.html As for how terrifying the advancing Swedes would be, it's shown in a song called Killing Ground, specifically one line "Emerged from the gunsmoke like demons" As for your quest to learn about the 1700s, House of History's series on the topic of the Prussian side of the 7 Years War is by far the best channel on the 7 Years War in Europe. Ironically, while you're an American trying to learn more about 1700s European Wars, I'm a Brit trying to find videos on the American theatre of the 7 Years War without much success. Any suggestions?
You used a different channel before, one of those cartoon history channels which covered this war . I remember you couldn’t decide whether Charles was good, or just crazy. Leaving from the front, putting himself in front of cannons, and basically saying screw you to all his military advisors LOL. This is a much better channel though. By the way I have ADD as well, I sympathize with you. Sometimes I have extremely complicated thoughts but trying to put them in words that aren’t 30 paragraphs is a big issue for me too. Another great thing about this channel, they do historical research, and don’t just put out possibly untrustworthy information. If there are conflicting sources, they’ll say so. If they are pretty different, they will basically say this is what some say this is what others do, and these are what are agreed between the sources, and will mention different modern viewpoints. See I already took a whole bunch of paragraphs 🤷🏻♂️
At about 06:30 you ask: Was there always a hatred of the Russian tzars even before the communist rule in Russia? The answer is no. There were, over several hundred years, rivalries, enmity, war, in Europe with shifting alliances and conflicts. Land was to a considerable degree considered the property of the reigning royal house and subject to the lust of rivals. The relationship between four major countries was central, and shifting (as were borders): France, Britain, Germany, Russia. Social conditions were of importance; for one thing many people enlisted as soldiers as an occupation, bringing in an income to feed their families. A particular point perhaps explaining some of the warring was: an army was so expensive for the reigning aristocrat that he practically had to have it go to war in other countries and plunder them, in order to keep the army running for DEFENSIVE purposes. - As late as at the end of the 1st World War we see a variant of it, AND of its often unexpected consequences: the victors of the 1st WW imposing such economic hardships on the loser Germany, to pay restitution, that (a) the unfairness of that, as seen by the Germans, was a factor why Hitler came to power, and (b) the enormous war damages Germany had to pay, as far as I know propelled the development of German industry and actually undermined the economy of the recipient France - there was no incentive to work hard and develop a brisk economy. Further back: the Spanish plundering of South America, from where they brought back enormous quantities of gold, brought the price of gold down in Spain/Europe and undermined the Spanish economy. A bit later you ask why Livonia brought wealth. Well, any area of land was usually taxed. That's what masters did. They owned the land and made the subjects pay tax. That is how the masters (kings or the like with armies and other means of making their underlings obey) got wealthy.
Peasant revolts happened often in Russia. But they usually never went anywhere and were suppressed. Thanks to religious and social indoctrination, a lot of (but by far not all) Russian peasants saw the Tsar as a fatherly figure. That began to change into the late 19th century however, and was basically no longer the case by the Russian Revolution. But fundamentally, the source of the Russian Revolution was the new urban proletariat and the rank and file of the army. Both of them were the backbone of both February and October Revolutions. The peasants were a useful ally that various factions tried to win over but few saw them as the source of power itself (except the Socialist-Revolutionary Party who were agrarian socialists).
27:45 - It seems to me that logistics have always been at the backbone of any military engagement. Here the Russians didn't have their logistics sorted out. They didn't have enough ammunition for the siege of Narva to start with, but instead of waiting for logistics to be sorted out, the Russians chose to push forward with their original plan. Maybe due to incompetence. Maybe due to a fear of telling the Tsar that it was a bad idea to continue. Maybe a mix. But it does sound, at least superficially, like something that is mirrored in modern times. Like, last month modern time. Russian forces moves to invade Ukraine, doesn't have their logistics sorted out, and instead of telling their Tsar (sorry, president) that it is a bad idea to continue without having logistics sorted out, they chose to push forward with their plan.
Czar Peter was just learning his trade, but he learns from his mistakes. King Charles inherited a find Swedish army, but otherwise he resembles Mark Anthony.
Once again, a reminder... part 2 of the Congress of Vienna. Or at least, if you don't plan to watch it, please heart his comment so I know to stop harassing you about it.
Connar, regarding Russia prior to the ‘Bolshevik Revolution’ of 1917. As in every Feudal Agricultural Society of the time, and those ‘Industrialising’. There was historically, ‘underlying resentment’ towards the Aristocratic Elites (landowning nobles and super rich businessmen); and the ‘Kulaks’, the wealthy independent farmer in the Russian Empire. The aristocracy exploited the Kulaks; and the Kulaks, exploited the ‘peasants’ (the ‘Surfs’ paid slaves) - who did all of the work. Often on behalf of the Aristocratic Elites (landowning nobles and super rich businessmen). Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, in the year 1905 there was the Russian Peasants' uprising of 1905-1906. These were a series of ‘peasant uprisings’ and violence, which broke out throughout the Russian Empire, following reactionary policies enforced by Tsar Nicholas II. These ‘peasant uprisings’ culminated on the 30th October 1905, in Tsar Nicholas II issuing his October Manifesto, officially "The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order". A document that served as a precursor to the Russian Empire's first Constitution, which was adopted the following year in 1906. The ‘Bolshevik Revolution’ of 1917, was the ‘culmination’ of the ‘push back’ against the ancient medieval styled ‘autocratic rule’ of the Tars, in the ‘modern era’. A ‘push back’ that had been building since Karl Marx published his, ‘Communist Manifesto’ in 1848, giving purpose, direction, and a clear ‘objective’, to the oppressed masses - ‘self-governance’: - “Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!” Kulak: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak Russian Peasants' uprising of 1905-1906: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Peasants'_uprising_of_1905-1906 October Manifesto: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Manifesto
Swede here! Well, what can I say. Russias military has always sucked big time. Look at our battles against them, we have had very good kill ratios. Look at our finnish brothers in the winter war in 1939, it was 1:6, something like that. And just look at Ukraine now, it's like 1:7 at least. Conclusion, Russia is still an old backwards society, a dictatorship with a lot of corruption and a bullying culture. Their military is to centralized because of these facts and this makes their military weak. Have always been will always be. Slava Ukraine we are with you friends!
Russia won every war it fought with Sweden from the Great Northern War to the Finnish War of 1808-09, and those ratios are simply untrue - at Poltava Sweden lost more men than the Russians, and in the following wars (1741-43, 1788-90 and 1808-09) casualties were pretty even. Russia was economically backwards sure, but from Peter the Great to the Crimean War, the Russian army was among the best in Europe: for example during the Seven Years' War the Russian army defeated Frederick the Great and occupied Berlin. So I'm not sure your argument is exactly correct. As economic strength and modernisation increasingly determined success in war, Russia's military strength began to wane, but that's only in the 19th century.
@@comradeotaku Well, you are correct about the time after the Swedish Empire. If we talk about the battles before Poltava, then the kill ratio was very good against the russians. I don't know what happened to Sweden at Poltava, but I seems that our military collapsed and never regained it's former glory after that battle. I don't know why, but good kill ratios where definitely there before Poltava. Also good kill ratios were seen in the 20th century for Germany and Finland against Russia and now in Ukraine.
@GoldRush In ww1 - poor leadership and economic backwardness In ww2 - another example of poor leadership: the good high-ranked officers were purged, meaning the promising lower ranking officers had all been promoted to higher positions, leaving only mediocre people in lower ranks. The USSR had a good selection of skilled top level commanders (Zhukov, Rokossovsky etc.) but was lacking in well trained/skilled mid-to-low-ranked officers which obviously hindered the fighting effectiveness of the Red Army. Additionally, Soviet doctrine was designed for offensive operations, and in the early stages of ww2 that just wasn't what the Soviets were doing; plus some of their best combat units and equipment was destroyed in encirclements in the first months of war. For the Winter War, that was just an awful disaster in every way haha (we definitely deserved it). The leadership was awful in the early stages (though it improved by the end as commands were shuffled around and eventually led to the Finns suing for peace) and logistics were also shit. Lesson: just as you shouldn't invade Russia in winter you shouldn't invade Finland in winter either. Not an expert on the war in Ukraine tbf but from a surface level, you're right. In this case it's probably an issue of logistics and also arrogance (assuming the people will greet you as liberators and that there would be little resistance and what not).
@@comradeotaku I don't know. I mean if you look at the battle of Svensksund in 1790 we crushed Russia. The kill ratio were like 1:15 or 1:20, or something like that. What I know, Russia has never had a good kill ratio against us, but we have had very good kill ratios against them in many battles But as you say in some battles we only had a 1:1 kill ratio and in others it was much more. I don't know why it differs so much, but I can't think of one single battle were the Russians had a very good kill ratio against us. Can you? Are you Russian by the way?
@@goldrush5764 yeah I'm Russian unfortunately. Luckily I live abroad but then again it's Britain (cue the anti-British jokes). In terms of battles where Russia had a decent kill ratio examples are Poltava (approx. b/w 1:1.5 to 1:3 for the Russians) and Villmanstrand (1:2) but generally most battles were pretty even in casualties, with a few stand out Swedish victories sprinkled here and there.
I distinctly remember celebrating the turn of the century, and of the millenium, on New Years Eve of 1999, so that can't be right. Edit: apparently you are right, at least according to Wikipedia. I guess it's because the first century began with the year 1, right?
it is true slots start from 1 and end in 10 but since we keep track on time, we came up with the "moment zero". this is why 0-9 is a thing for the first decade or 00s. the 80s as 80-89. the 1600s as 1600-1699.
10:00 The most efficient way to trade in those days was by boat. So controlling the ports meant controlling the trade coming out of the inland areas. Especially if the port sat on a river mouth. So if the Poles or Russians wanted to trade with western Europe via the Baltic, they would have to send at least some of it through Swedish controlled ports, meaning Sweden could tax them. Taxing foreign trade has always been a good way for kings to boost their income, since few people at home would grumble about it. This is why the monarchs of Denmark were among the wealthiest in Europe during the middle ages. They could tax all trade going in and out of the Baltic, and no one could really do anything about it.
Re; the Tsars. Yes and no. The majority of the Russian population were at the time peasants, and extremely religious. The Tsars were seen as ruling by divine fiat, so the peasants agreed that the Tsar har the right to rule by authoritarian monarchy. That did not mean that everything the Tsars did was seen as good, but it did mean that up until the revolutions and even during and after, the vast majority of the peasants thought the Tsar was the rightful ruler.
Peter the Great wanted to modernize Russia with a modern army and a navy. Before him the contact between Russia and the rest of Europe was limited. Russia still had problems and didn't get along with things like human rights. Serfdom was abolished in 1861 and even after that most of the countryside was extremely poor. Russia was more in the European after Peter the Great but at the end of the 1800:s, it was obvious that the Russian tzardom was gonna fall.
The Russian Empire was the most conservative country in Europe. By overthrowing the Czar under Kerensky, this was a military revolt. The overthrowing of Kerensky by Lenin was a German plot, and a means for the new urban proletariat to revolt. Neither were traditional peasant revolts (which had happened before in Czarist Russia). The resulting Russian Civil War, and the Holodomor under Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin was the suppression of a peasant revolt by the cities against extreme death and poverty from WW I. Russia has never been genuinely democratic, always authoritarian. There has always been, in every traditional society, hatred of the landlord by the slaves, serfs and free farmers. This extends to hatred of all cities since the invention of civilization (cities). The Czar or Queen Elizabeth II, are only honored by tradition or religion ... and useful for the real power, the barons. Of course this results in baronial wars (King John vs barons or Czar Peter the Great vs boyars). By violence, not by free will, the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union, on the top of millions of corpses ... flipping completely from sacred kingship and state church to dictatorship by Left Intelligencia and atheism.
If you look into Russian history there's a lot of cases of "new king same as the old", the Communist were not really much better then the Czar before and in some ways even worse, it should say something that serfdom was abolished in late 19th century for Russia (or might have been even early 20th century) even though for Western Europe Serfdom hadn't really been a thing for centuries.
@@SampoPaalanen What makes the New World unique is, except for Natives and Slaves, there wasn't a centuries old aristocracy to overthrow, and the Church was weak, particularly in the US. Marx experienced the revolts of 1848 and 1871, other than that he was a bad economist and a worse ideologue.
1) the Russian Civil War wasn't an attempt to suppress a peasant revolt; it was started by reactionary elements, mainly in the officer ranks, and among landowners and bourgeoisie 2) Lenin and Trotsky had nothing to do with the Holodomor, idk what you're smoking 3) "baronial power" or whatever was dead in Russia following Peter. The aristocracy in Russia 1700-1917 was a landed service class, not a true feudal aristocracy 4) "by violence, not by free will" this is true about all meaningful political transformations in history. Politics is a question of who gets to use violence and against whom
@@comradeotaku Your POV is Marxist ;-) Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin ... comrades in arms when trying to recover Poland in 1920 ... the Communists had the support of the proletariat in the cities, a small number of people at that time, the Democrats had the support of the small business and large business in the cities, an even smaller group. The monarchists had the support of the very large landowners and peasants (as such who would support their landlords). But the Democrats had fled and the Monarchists had been decapitated. So how do 9 million die in the Civil War, without lots of peasants dying? The White Russians used them as cannon fodder against Trotsky genius. I wouldn't support monarchists myself, nor communists. The Democrats were lacking in popular support. The Holodomor was the consolidation, thru 3 million starvations, during collectivization and using food to gain foreign trade ... long after the Civil War. So a difference without a difference. As far as violence justifies violence, that is what Hitler said too.
@@williambranch4283 The peasantry certainly did not support the monarchists. They supported the agrarian and democratic socialist SRs because the peasants' primary demand was land reform. As it was satisfied by the Bolshevik Decree on Land they had very little incentive to get involved in the war. Both sides treated them at times as cannon fodder and at times as allies of convenience, but the war itself was between Reds and the White reactionaries, not between Reds and peasants. Sure, the peasantry weren't too fond of the Bolsheviks but their aim wasn't to overthrow the Bolsheviks; they just wanted ownership of their land and their produce. In terms of land, the Bolsheviks confirmed this with the Decree on Land, and in terms of produce, with the end of War Communism and the institution of the NEP in 1921. The Holodomor was a Stalinist endeavour. Not Lenin/Trotsky's. It's not the 'same difference' by any means. Lenin was dead, Trotsky was in exile furiously criticising Stalin's regime. Lenin even said that "the NEP is here for a long time", so it definitely wasn't in his plans to conduct such a brutal collectivisation campaign in the 1930s. Trotsky, in the Transitional Programme, explicitly stated that collectivisation should be voluntary, and not forced; the only land reform that should be forced is the distribution of landowners' land to the peasantry directly.
Strange that the speaker talks about Denmark. Denmark didnt exsist as a country on its own. The country was Denmark-Norway because Norway got under the danish king back in the 13th century when the kalmar union was founded. Actually one of the great danish-norwegian war heros in the great nothern war >Tordenskjold< or Peter Wessel wich was his formel name, was born in Christiania (Today Oslo the capital for Norway). So to seperat the country Denmark-Norway as the speaker does, doesnt make any sense. Denmark and Norway was seperated in 1814 when the Danish king lost Norway in a forced peace agreement after Denmark-Norway had supported Napoleon until his defeat.
Denmark was still Denmark. The King of Denmark just happened to also be crowned King of Norway. In general Danish history and speak it is never called Denmark-Norway, and Tordenskjold is just approriated as being a Danish hero. There is even a danish song about him, and Norway is not mentioned at all. It is also during this time that Denmark has colonies in West Africa, Denmark, not Denmark-Norway. Similarly Denmark has colonies in India and Islands in the Carribean, Norway has nothing to do with it. It is somewhat confusing. Norwegian history will talk about the Denmark-Norway period as occupation more than a single country/kingdom as well. With 1814 being the first liberation.
He was not born in Oslo but in Trondheim! You can google "Peter Wessel Tordehskiold". But he was Norwegian, that's right. A lot of sailors in the Dano-Norwegian fleet were.
@@marianneskanland310 There is a statue of Peter Wessel outside of the parliament church in Copenhagen Denmark, and a gigantic one in Trondheim. Peter Wessel is also the face of the Danish produced box of matches since the 1800's. The fight to claim his legacy is still going on today.
Hi Mc Jibbin(: a Russian soldier fight because the general told them to fight...A swed fight for his country and for the guy next to him (: that is why the sweds is stronger yes swed generals give order to but that order is long way before the attack (: USA Hockey team is damn good at the old swed war tactic in hockey...they make a plan before the match then even if they get 2 goal in there ass they "Stand on the plan" and at the end USA Winning the match (: And KARL XII was a exremely good tacticer in war hi always say that god told him.it was not order from him it was from god... Sounds very strange today ha ha ha and all sweds liked him and respected him... Russian army changed people every week on the leadership.....they don't understand why they are or what they meet (: just like todays Ukrain the Russian military dont know if they gone shoot or running home ha ha ha ha
Russia has still not learned, the w(oops) special operation in Ukraine fail of the same reasons, bad logistic and lack of competent leaders and lack of training.
Like here in the film in Narva, the same thing when they attacked Finland, the Russians suffered great losses. because Finns and Swedes held the pole and waged a guerilla war. And now we see the same thing in Ukraine as you wrote. They have learned absolutely nothing at all. Should the Russians attack us here in Sweden, I am absolutely not afraid. Because I know we have weapons and can beat a numerically superior military power like Russia. Now Russia is also seriously weakened
@@1891726 I thought that Putler would be killed by his own generals but it seems like they have done so many crimes so they are probably scared about a regime shift. Well Ukraina is doing a good job but remember that they are also very corrupt, the money that USA send to them may get into the leaders pockets.
Kings and Generals: The Russians are well dug in, in a city, and outnumber their opponents 4 to one. The Swedes show up after a forced march under a boy king with no support. You: It's not really fair; the Russians never really had a chance to begin with. I jest but real life doesn't have plot armour.
It's pretty funny that Rehnskiöld never gets any credit, despite being the actual military brain behind the early Swedish victories. When his king wanted to attack Narva he was the guy who drew up the plan and disposed the troops and coordinated the attack, He would do the same at Dvina and Klizow although increasingly the king grew into personal command.
You make is seem like the swedes were the favorites, they were heavily outnumbered and attacking a dug in foe. Led by an 18 year old king they were definately the underdog going in to the battle. Loved the reaction as usual!
You are right. However, the Russian troops were abandoned by their tsar, they did not have competent commanders. The artillery was useless. In addition, the Swedish soldiers were much better armed and trained. Therefore, I think that if the Swedes did not have an advantage, then at least the battle could be equal.
@@Какой-тоКактус Good point.
@@Какой-тоКактус Until they used scorched earth tactics
@@vincentL.7 even with scorched earth tactics the only reason the swedish lost the battle of poltava is because carolus was unavailable to take command and overconfident generals
@@Какой-тоКактус "abandoned by their tsar" It was virtually only Swedish kings that led their armies in Europe. The rest kept a safe distance. They were in a entrenched position and had plenty of artillery and outnumbered the Swedes 4-1, the difference comes down to the Swedes being well trained soldiers while the mass of the Russians were conscripted levies. Hadn't the winter storm covered the Swedish approach they would likely have been able to resist better. Untrained people are prone to panic when they don't feel their side is in control.
The administrative reforms of Karl XI were so impressive that after the destruction of the Swedish army at Poltava, it took less than 6 months to train, equip, recruit new officers and mobilize a whole new army to defend Skåne from Denmark and then counterattack into Northern Germany, led by the legendary Magnus Stenbock who still stands as a statue in Helsingborg where he crushed the danish army.
"The Russian army, as ineffective as it was large" 300 years later and that still holds true.
Lol
We don't have many people in Sweden so we've always had to train our troops to be the best they can be to beat these foes who outnumbered us 3-4x.
Staten var efter stormaktstiden väldigt oroliga, då de tillochmed ansåg att det var farligt/pinsamt att erkänna sveriges population, som var lite större än 2 miljoner (finland inräknat)
@@emiljohansson2698 exakt
Dragoons are mounted infantry basically, trained to use both swords and firearms while on horseback.
I like to think of dragoons as horse archers with guns
Dragoons started off as mounted infantry, musketeeers given cheap nags so they could keep up with cavalry columns on raiding expeditions. That was how they began around the time of the 30 Years War and English Civil War. But by now the horses were better and while the soldiers in the regiments carried carbines they also trained to fight mounted in a charge. Swedish dragoons largely operated as shock cavalry, though there were times they dismounted to skirmish in difficult terrain. Russian dragoons were more inclined to dismount and shoot, though they sometimes fought on their horses; but the Russian army was more inclined to firepower and less to shock than the Swedes and that probably explains the preference of their dragoons for firepower to some extent.
The weather played an important role in this battle. Also part of the reason why the King of Sweden confiscated so much land from the nobility in Livonia was the Allotment System, where soldiers were given land in return for military service. The Swedish nobility were not as strong as other countries, and this kind of thing had already happened in mainland Sweden. It was different from feudalism because the soldiers didnt actually own the land but I think the state did. The soldiers would farm the land in peacetime.
8:09 That is wrong. Scania (Skåne) was signed over to Sweden in the peace treaty with Denmark in 1658, during the rule of Karl X Gustav. The Scanian War in the 1670's was about Denmark trying to take it back, but failing to do so.
Sadly. "Freden i Roskilde" is still a national catastrophe.
@@Akkolon for Denmark.
@@kreftan ummm yes - thank you for stating the obvious. It's not bloody Mozambique we are talking about after all. What is your point?
@@Akkolon I think he meant that it was not a National Catastrophe for Sweden it was not clear what country you meant.
@@AdmiralLj is it called “Freden I Roskilde” in Swedish? Because I was sure writing it in Danish would be a dead giveaway.
To the skies...see Carolus rise!!!!
Livonia was wealthy because of the ancient inland trade route to Byzantium from Riga (called the Dvina-Dnieper navigation route) founded by the Vikings.
Dive in folks!
Dragons are horse mounted infantry, who used horses for mobility, but dismounted to fight on foot.
I will once again accept the people's thanks!
Pori County Infantry Regiment (finnish) During the Great Northern War of 1700-1721, the regiment took part in the battles of Narva , Poltava and Napue , among others, and in the Norwegian expedition . It was re-established several times during the war after being destroyed in non-existent battles or diseases. "Sons of a people whose blood was shed,
On the field of Narva; Polish sand; at Leipzig; on Lützen's dark hills; Not yet is Finland defeated; With the blood of foes a field may still be tinted red!"
Oh cool, finally a video I like to watch. Thanks for doing the history stuff again, I appriciate you (and your channel) so much. I hope you have a great day!!
Charles lost 667 killed and around 1,200 wounded. Russian losses were approximately 10,000 killed and 20,000 captured.
Let's hope those stats will be in favor of Sweden/Finland if the old foe reappears.
Sweden has been in at least 12 wars with Russia since the he 12th century.
And i have heard somewhere, that 13 is an unlucky nummer...
🙏
I have faith in Sweden they have alot of allies and there military while very small is pretty modern and capable
Oh, was expecting the new Post-Caesar Civil War video before starting this one up :D
Battle of Narva 30/11 1700 Carolus Rex age 18 ,relief army (he led himself ,was outnumbered 1:10 but succeded to attack and after a copule of hours Our Ancestors could celebrate the Victory. The Battle of Narva was a terrible defeat for the Russian army total 18000 men lost their lives on the Swedish side lost abt 700.
Total losses are 18,000 men, including wounded and captured. The number of dead is rather 6,000.
@@lahire4943 Swedish and Russian have contradictory figures,According to History professor Dick Harrisson, Lund the Russian Losses were 9000, and the number of Russian prisoners so many that after they left their weapons and batleflaggs the rest of the Russian officers and soldiers could return to the east, tsar Peter himself left 1 day before the battle the carolean fighting technics and tactics together with the harsh dicipline made the swedes at that time one of the best Armies in Europe
I love your history reactions, especially the ones regarding the northern wars(of course😉).
Great video and reaction as usual👍
Kings and Generals is my fave new channel... they go deeper into the actual battle tactics and stuff. I've already binged the Roman Civil War series and the Alexander the Great series. I highly recommend them.
Carolus Rex is one of the greatest underdogs of all time...you might see Sweden at this time as the great power guaranteed to win wars against their enemies, but everything was against Carolus Rex, it was pretty much his luck and his stoic nature that got him as far as he did in the war.
Yes that area of Finland is called Lakeland and Finland is referred to land of thousand lakes, even tho there are something like 168k of them
It was the Swedes who were heavly outnumberd and won our greatest military victory ever (Battle of Lund and Breitenfeldt is up there to).
Finland is known as the land of a 1000 lakes. Once you leave the coast you enter the forests filled with smaller lakes.
In reality it's more like 100.000 though.
The short anser to the Tzar qustion is yes. I think there is a good vid on KRAUT's youtube channel that can anser your qustion more on depth.
0:03 same
It's not the only time in the war when Charles will decide to storm a Russian camp against superior numbers.
The HistoryMarche video on this subject seems like a good companion piece.
Battle of Narva, 1700 ⚔ How did Sweden break the Russian army? ⚔ Great Nothern War
HistoryMarche
th-cam.com/video/8JG0W2o8ULs/w-d-xo.html
As for how terrifying the advancing Swedes would be, it's shown in a song called Killing Ground, specifically one line "Emerged from the gunsmoke like demons"
As for your quest to learn about the 1700s, House of History's series on the topic of the Prussian side of the 7 Years War is by far the best channel on the 7 Years War in Europe.
Ironically, while you're an American trying to learn more about 1700s European Wars, I'm a Brit trying to find videos on the American theatre of the 7 Years War without much success. Any suggestions?
Narva.. Carolus Rex and Peter the great clashing. Karl XII such a boss as per usual. A dragoon is a kind of cavalry btw
You used a different channel before, one of those cartoon history channels which covered this war . I remember you couldn’t decide whether Charles was good, or just crazy. Leaving from the front, putting himself in front of cannons, and basically saying screw you to all his military advisors LOL. This is a much better channel though. By the way I have ADD as well, I sympathize with you. Sometimes I have extremely complicated thoughts but trying to put them in words that aren’t 30 paragraphs is a big issue for me too. Another great thing about this channel, they do historical research, and don’t just put out possibly untrustworthy information. If there are conflicting sources, they’ll say so. If they are pretty different, they will basically say this is what some say this is what others do, and these are what are agreed between the sources, and will mention different modern viewpoints. See I already took a whole bunch of paragraphs 🤷🏻♂️
At about 06:30 you ask: Was there always a hatred of the Russian tzars even before the communist rule in Russia?
The answer is no. There were, over several hundred years, rivalries, enmity, war, in Europe with shifting alliances and conflicts. Land was to a considerable degree considered the property of the reigning royal house and subject to the lust of rivals. The relationship between four major countries was central, and shifting (as were borders): France, Britain, Germany, Russia.
Social conditions were of importance; for one thing many people enlisted as soldiers as an occupation, bringing in an income to feed their families. A particular point perhaps explaining some of the warring was: an army was so expensive for the reigning aristocrat that he practically had to have it go to war in other countries and plunder them, in order to keep the army running for DEFENSIVE purposes. - As late as at the end of the 1st World War we see a variant of it, AND of its often unexpected consequences: the victors of the 1st WW imposing such economic hardships on the loser Germany, to pay restitution, that (a) the unfairness of that, as seen by the Germans, was a factor why Hitler came to power, and (b) the enormous war damages Germany had to pay, as far as I know propelled the development of German industry and actually undermined the economy of the recipient France - there was no incentive to work hard and develop a brisk economy. Further back: the Spanish plundering of South America, from where they brought back enormous quantities of gold, brought the price of gold down in Spain/Europe and undermined the Spanish economy.
A bit later you ask why Livonia brought wealth. Well, any area of land was usually taxed. That's what masters did. They owned the land and made the subjects pay tax. That is how the masters (kings or the like with armies and other means of making their underlings obey) got wealthy.
Peasant revolts happened often in Russia. But they usually never went anywhere and were suppressed.
Thanks to religious and social indoctrination, a lot of (but by far not all) Russian peasants saw the Tsar as a fatherly figure. That began to change into the late 19th century however, and was basically no longer the case by the Russian Revolution.
But fundamentally, the source of the Russian Revolution was the new urban proletariat and the rank and file of the army. Both of them were the backbone of both February and October Revolutions. The peasants were a useful ally that various factions tried to win over but few saw them as the source of power itself (except the Socialist-Revolutionary Party who were agrarian socialists).
27:45 - It seems to me that logistics have always been at the backbone of any military engagement.
Here the Russians didn't have their logistics sorted out. They didn't have enough ammunition for the siege of Narva to start with, but instead of waiting for logistics to be sorted out, the Russians chose to push forward with their original plan. Maybe due to incompetence. Maybe due to a fear of telling the Tsar that it was a bad idea to continue. Maybe a mix.
But it does sound, at least superficially, like something that is mirrored in modern times. Like, last month modern time.
Russian forces moves to invade Ukraine, doesn't have their logistics sorted out, and instead of telling their Tsar (sorry, president) that it is a bad idea to continue without having logistics sorted out, they chose to push forward with their plan.
Tactics win battles, logistics win wars
Czar Peter was just learning his trade, but he learns from his mistakes. King Charles inherited a find Swedish army, but otherwise he resembles Mark Anthony.
Once again, a reminder... part 2 of the Congress of Vienna. Or at least, if you don't plan to watch it, please heart his comment so I know to stop harassing you about it.
I will watch it this weekend i promise you
@@McJibbin 👍And as promised, I shall stop harassing you.
@@Mixcoatl He will forget to react to it I bet on it. 😂
well ur gonna lose that bet
@@McJibbin Like you lost the Last one you made with me a few weeks ago?
About the number 1700. I suspect that it is because US modern history is considered to start in 1776, so 1700 seems more resent to you than 1699.
Connar, regarding Russia prior to the ‘Bolshevik Revolution’ of 1917. As in every Feudal Agricultural Society of the time, and those ‘Industrialising’. There was historically, ‘underlying resentment’ towards the Aristocratic Elites (landowning nobles and super rich businessmen); and the ‘Kulaks’, the wealthy independent farmer in the Russian Empire.
The aristocracy exploited the Kulaks; and the Kulaks, exploited the ‘peasants’ (the ‘Surfs’ paid slaves) - who did all of the work. Often on behalf of the Aristocratic Elites (landowning nobles and super rich businessmen).
Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, in the year 1905 there was the Russian Peasants' uprising of 1905-1906. These were a series of ‘peasant uprisings’ and violence, which broke out throughout the Russian Empire, following reactionary policies enforced by Tsar Nicholas II.
These ‘peasant uprisings’ culminated on the 30th October 1905, in Tsar Nicholas II issuing his October Manifesto, officially "The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order". A document that served as a precursor to the Russian Empire's first Constitution, which was adopted the following year in 1906.
The ‘Bolshevik Revolution’ of 1917, was the ‘culmination’ of the ‘push back’ against the ancient medieval styled ‘autocratic rule’ of the Tars, in the ‘modern era’.
A ‘push back’ that had been building since Karl Marx published his, ‘Communist Manifesto’ in 1848, giving purpose, direction, and a clear ‘objective’, to the oppressed masses - ‘self-governance’: - “Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”
Kulak:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak
Russian Peasants' uprising of 1905-1906:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Peasants'_uprising_of_1905-1906
October Manifesto:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Manifesto
Thanks Austin!
Swede here! Well, what can I say. Russias military has always sucked big time. Look at our battles against them, we have had very good kill ratios. Look at our finnish brothers in the winter war in 1939, it was 1:6, something like that. And just look at Ukraine now, it's like 1:7 at least.
Conclusion, Russia is still an old backwards society, a dictatorship with a lot of corruption and a bullying culture. Their military is to centralized because of these facts and this makes their military weak. Have always been will always be.
Slava Ukraine we are with you friends!
Russia won every war it fought with Sweden from the Great Northern War to the Finnish War of 1808-09, and those ratios are simply untrue - at Poltava Sweden lost more men than the Russians, and in the following wars (1741-43, 1788-90 and 1808-09) casualties were pretty even. Russia was economically backwards sure, but from Peter the Great to the Crimean War, the Russian army was among the best in Europe: for example during the Seven Years' War the Russian army defeated Frederick the Great and occupied Berlin. So I'm not sure your argument is exactly correct. As economic strength and modernisation increasingly determined success in war, Russia's military strength began to wane, but that's only in the 19th century.
@@comradeotaku Well, you are correct about the time after the Swedish Empire. If we talk about the battles before Poltava, then the kill ratio was very good against the russians.
I don't know what happened to Sweden at Poltava, but I seems that our military collapsed and never regained it's former glory after that battle. I don't know why, but good kill ratios where definitely there before Poltava. Also good kill ratios were seen in the 20th century for Germany and Finland against Russia and now in Ukraine.
@GoldRush
In ww1 - poor leadership and economic backwardness
In ww2 - another example of poor leadership: the good high-ranked officers were purged, meaning the promising lower ranking officers had all been promoted to higher positions, leaving only mediocre people in lower ranks. The USSR had a good selection of skilled top level commanders (Zhukov, Rokossovsky etc.) but was lacking in well trained/skilled mid-to-low-ranked officers which obviously hindered the fighting effectiveness of the Red Army. Additionally, Soviet doctrine was designed for offensive operations, and in the early stages of ww2 that just wasn't what the Soviets were doing; plus some of their best combat units and equipment was destroyed in encirclements in the first months of war.
For the Winter War, that was just an awful disaster in every way haha (we definitely deserved it). The leadership was awful in the early stages (though it improved by the end as commands were shuffled around and eventually led to the Finns suing for peace) and logistics were also shit. Lesson: just as you shouldn't invade Russia in winter you shouldn't invade Finland in winter either.
Not an expert on the war in Ukraine tbf but from a surface level, you're right. In this case it's probably an issue of logistics and also arrogance (assuming the people will greet you as liberators and that there would be little resistance and what not).
@@comradeotaku I don't know. I mean if you look at the battle of Svensksund in 1790 we crushed Russia.
The kill ratio were like 1:15 or 1:20, or something like that. What I know, Russia has never had a good kill ratio against us, but we have had very good kill ratios against them in many battles
But as you say in some battles we only had a 1:1 kill ratio and in others it was much more. I don't know why it differs so much, but I can't think of one single battle were the Russians had a very good kill ratio against us. Can you?
Are you Russian by the way?
@@goldrush5764 yeah I'm Russian unfortunately. Luckily I live abroad but then again it's Britain (cue the anti-British jokes).
In terms of battles where Russia had a decent kill ratio examples are Poltava (approx. b/w 1:1.5 to 1:3 for the Russians) and Villmanstrand (1:2) but generally most battles were pretty even in casualties, with a few stand out Swedish victories sprinkled here and there.
Actually, 1699, and 1700 is in the same century. 18th century starts in 1701
I distinctly remember celebrating the turn of the century, and of the millenium, on New Years Eve of 1999, so that can't be right.
Edit: apparently you are right, at least according to Wikipedia. I guess it's because the first century began with the year 1, right?
@@Griexxt That is correct
it is true slots start from 1 and end in 10 but since we keep track on time, we came up with the "moment zero". this is why 0-9 is a thing for the first decade or 00s. the 80s as 80-89. the 1600s as 1600-1699.
The video is incorrect about the scanian war, sweden niether gaind or lost territory during that war.
10:00 The most efficient way to trade in those days was by boat. So controlling the ports meant controlling the trade coming out of the inland areas. Especially if the port sat on a river mouth.
So if the Poles or Russians wanted to trade with western Europe via the Baltic, they would have to send at least some of it through Swedish controlled ports, meaning Sweden could tax them.
Taxing foreign trade has always been a good way for kings to boost their income, since few people at home would grumble about it.
This is why the monarchs of Denmark were among the wealthiest in Europe during the middle ages. They could tax all trade going in and out of the Baltic, and no one could really do anything about it.
Re; the Tsars. Yes and no. The majority of the Russian population were at the time peasants, and extremely religious. The Tsars were seen as ruling by divine fiat, so the peasants agreed that the Tsar har the right to rule by authoritarian monarchy. That did not mean that everything the Tsars did was seen as good, but it did mean that up until the revolutions and even during and after, the vast majority of the peasants thought the Tsar was the rightful ruler.
Peter the Great wanted to modernize Russia with a modern army and a navy. Before him the contact between Russia and the rest of Europe was limited. Russia still had problems and didn't get along with things like human rights. Serfdom was abolished in 1861 and even after that most of the countryside was extremely poor. Russia was more in the European after Peter the Great but at the end of the 1800:s, it was obvious that the Russian tzardom was gonna fall.
The Russian Empire was the most conservative country in Europe. By overthrowing the Czar under Kerensky, this was a military revolt. The overthrowing of Kerensky by Lenin was a German plot, and a means for the new urban proletariat to revolt. Neither were traditional peasant revolts (which had happened before in Czarist Russia). The resulting Russian Civil War, and the Holodomor under Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin was the suppression of a peasant revolt by the cities against extreme death and poverty from WW I. Russia has never been genuinely democratic, always authoritarian. There has always been, in every traditional society, hatred of the landlord by the slaves, serfs and free farmers. This extends to hatred of all cities since the invention of civilization (cities). The Czar or Queen Elizabeth II, are only honored by tradition or religion ... and useful for the real power, the barons. Of course this results in baronial wars (King John vs barons or Czar Peter the Great vs boyars). By violence, not by free will, the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union, on the top of millions of corpses ... flipping completely from sacred kingship and state church to dictatorship by Left Intelligencia and atheism.
If you look into Russian history there's a lot of cases of "new king same as the old", the Communist were not really much better then the Czar before and in some ways even worse, it should say something that serfdom was abolished in late 19th century for Russia (or might have been even early 20th century) even though for Western Europe Serfdom hadn't really been a thing for centuries.
@@SampoPaalanen What makes the New World unique is, except for Natives and Slaves, there wasn't a centuries old aristocracy to overthrow, and the Church was weak, particularly in the US. Marx experienced the revolts of 1848 and 1871, other than that he was a bad economist and a worse ideologue.
1) the Russian Civil War wasn't an attempt to suppress a peasant revolt; it was started by reactionary elements, mainly in the officer ranks, and among landowners and bourgeoisie
2) Lenin and Trotsky had nothing to do with the Holodomor, idk what you're smoking
3) "baronial power" or whatever was dead in Russia following Peter. The aristocracy in Russia 1700-1917 was a landed service class, not a true feudal aristocracy
4) "by violence, not by free will" this is true about all meaningful political transformations in history. Politics is a question of who gets to use violence and against whom
@@comradeotaku Your POV is Marxist ;-) Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin ... comrades in arms when trying to recover Poland in 1920 ... the Communists had the support of the proletariat in the cities, a small number of people at that time, the Democrats had the support of the small business and large business in the cities, an even smaller group. The monarchists had the support of the very large landowners and peasants (as such who would support their landlords). But the Democrats had fled and the Monarchists had been decapitated. So how do 9 million die in the Civil War, without lots of peasants dying? The White Russians used them as cannon fodder against Trotsky genius. I wouldn't support monarchists myself, nor communists. The Democrats were lacking in popular support. The Holodomor was the consolidation, thru 3 million starvations, during collectivization and using food to gain foreign trade ... long after the Civil War. So a difference without a difference. As far as violence justifies violence, that is what Hitler said too.
@@williambranch4283 The peasantry certainly did not support the monarchists. They supported the agrarian and democratic socialist SRs because the peasants' primary demand was land reform. As it was satisfied by the Bolshevik Decree on Land they had very little incentive to get involved in the war. Both sides treated them at times as cannon fodder and at times as allies of convenience, but the war itself was between Reds and the White reactionaries, not between Reds and peasants. Sure, the peasantry weren't too fond of the Bolsheviks but their aim wasn't to overthrow the Bolsheviks; they just wanted ownership of their land and their produce. In terms of land, the Bolsheviks confirmed this with the Decree on Land, and in terms of produce, with the end of War Communism and the institution of the NEP in 1921.
The Holodomor was a Stalinist endeavour. Not Lenin/Trotsky's. It's not the 'same difference' by any means. Lenin was dead, Trotsky was in exile furiously criticising Stalin's regime. Lenin even said that "the NEP is here for a long time", so it definitely wasn't in his plans to conduct such a brutal collectivisation campaign in the 1930s. Trotsky, in the Transitional Programme, explicitly stated that collectivisation should be voluntary, and not forced; the only land reform that should be forced is the distribution of landowners' land to the peasantry directly.
Strange that the speaker talks about Denmark. Denmark didnt exsist as a country on its own. The country was Denmark-Norway because Norway got under the danish king back in the 13th century when the kalmar union was founded. Actually one of the great danish-norwegian war heros in the great nothern war >Tordenskjold< or Peter Wessel wich was his formel name, was born in Christiania (Today Oslo the capital for Norway). So to seperat the country Denmark-Norway as the speaker does, doesnt make any sense. Denmark and Norway was seperated in 1814 when the Danish king lost Norway in a forced peace agreement after Denmark-Norway had supported Napoleon until his defeat.
Denmark was still Denmark.
The King of Denmark just happened to also be crowned King of Norway.
In general Danish history and speak it is never called Denmark-Norway, and Tordenskjold is just approriated as being a Danish hero. There is even a danish song about him, and Norway is not mentioned at all.
It is also during this time that Denmark has colonies in West Africa, Denmark, not Denmark-Norway. Similarly Denmark has colonies in India and Islands in the Carribean, Norway has nothing to do with it.
It is somewhat confusing.
Norwegian history will talk about the Denmark-Norway period as occupation more than a single country/kingdom as well. With 1814 being the first liberation.
He was not born in Oslo but in Trondheim! You can google "Peter Wessel Tordehskiold". But he was Norwegian, that's right. A lot of sailors in the Dano-Norwegian fleet were.
@@marianneskanland310 There is a statue of Peter Wessel outside of the parliament church in Copenhagen Denmark, and a gigantic one in Trondheim.
Peter Wessel is also the face of the Danish produced box of matches since the 1800's.
The fight to claim his legacy is still going on today.
Hi Mc Jibbin(: a Russian soldier fight because the general told them to fight...A swed fight for his country and for the guy next to him (: that is why the sweds is stronger yes swed generals give order to but that order is long way before the attack (: USA Hockey team is damn good at the old swed war tactic in hockey...they make a plan before the match then even if they get 2 goal in there ass they "Stand on the plan" and at the end USA Winning the match (: And KARL XII was a exremely good tacticer in war hi always say that god told him.it was not order from him it was from god... Sounds very strange today ha ha ha and all sweds liked him and respected him... Russian army changed people every week on the leadership.....they don't understand why they are or what they meet (: just like todays Ukrain the Russian military dont know if they gone shoot or running home ha ha ha ha
Russia has still not learned, the w(oops) special operation in Ukraine fail of the same reasons, bad logistic and lack of competent leaders and lack of training.
Like here in the film in Narva, the same thing when they attacked Finland, the Russians suffered great losses. because Finns and Swedes held the pole and waged a guerilla war. And now we see the same thing in Ukraine as you wrote. They have learned absolutely nothing at all. Should the Russians attack us here in Sweden, I am absolutely not afraid. Because I know we have weapons and can beat a numerically superior military power like Russia. Now Russia is also seriously weakened
@@1891726 I thought that Putler would be killed by his own generals but it seems like they have done so many crimes so they are probably scared about a regime shift.
Well Ukraina is doing a good job but remember that they are also very corrupt, the money that USA send to them may get into the leaders pockets.
Sweden was a superpower. Not anymore
Kings and Generals: The Russians are well dug in, in a city, and outnumber their opponents 4 to one. The Swedes show up after a forced march under a boy king with no support.
You: It's not really fair; the Russians never really had a chance to begin with.
I jest but real life doesn't have plot armour.