Corrections *I in the video I'm referring to the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth only as Poland. The reason is that the Swedish literature that I'm using only referred to it but after looking at more international literature I have decided to go with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth or just the commonwealth. *Duke Charles duchy did not have an official title nor was called the duchy of Värmland. While Charles duchy did include Värmland it also included much more land in central Sweden which I forgot to include on the map.
@@quillinkhistory9539 I get into animating, it takes a while then i begin to hate the project and restart, thus is the cycle, Im gonna not predict any of my uploads, itll jus be in your subbox or twitter feed when its done
I got so excited seeing the notification, not only because it's always great to see a new video from you, but also because I knew you will have to talk about Poland-Lithuania in this one! With full admission to being a biased fanboy of the PLC, here are some notes that I have: 1. Bold of you to repeatedly refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Union (the Commonwealth since 1569) as simply 'Poland' and label it as such on the map showing mostly the Lithuanian part. I hope you won't get any angry Lithuanian comments. ;) 2. The image you used as the symbol of Poland-Lithuania, which is commonly shown on the internet as the flag of the PLC, is actually the royal banner of Sigismund III. In the heraldry depicted on it, you can see the Swedish coat of arms (including the Vasa family coat of arms) embedded within the Polish-Lithuanian one. I think that this particular design became so popular because we have a nice, detailed, and contemporary depiction of it from a 1605 painting, known in Polish as 'Rolka sztokholmska' and in Swedish as 'Polska rullen'. The painting itself has an interesting history, but that's a story probably better suited for the next video in this series. 3. Saying that Sigismund was elected by the Polish Diet (Sejm) is technically true but there's more to it. Since 1572 the so-called free royal elections, while happening during a special session of the Sejm, were open to not just its members (the Senators and the elected representatives in the lower chamber) but to all adult male nobles, that would arrive at the election field. It meant approximately tens of thousands of voters participating each time! (There nobility was very numerous, about 7-8% of the total population). Of course, before the vote, someone had to decide the list of candidates. It was done on another special session of the Sejm, known as Convocation. The Convocation Sejm ('Sejm konwokacyjny' in Polish) was also preparing a document known Pacta Conventa, which was sort of a contract, that the newly elected monarch would have to sign. It was different each time, except for the core part, known as the Henrician Articles.
Thanks for the feedback, Artur! To be honest, the naming of the commonwealth as just "Poland" was due to the literature that I was using. Swedish history literature seem to call Poland-Lithuania Poland and I came to reflect on it when I started a new EU4 campaign but by that time I was halfway through the editing and didn't have the time to edit it. I think ill be fine though. Worst case scenario, I'll just post an apology video where I cry in the camera for 5 min ;) I didn't think about the Polish flag being the flag of Sigismund. Your right that the Vasa-symbol is in the middle, it's so small though that I completely missed it when I did the editing. I wasn't aware of the special circumstance surrounding Sigismund's coronation and I appreciate that you point it out. I've come to realize that the Swedish literature that I use, while being good at covering Swedish history, not seldom tends to treat neighboring countries countries lightly, often glossing over the complexities of why foreign countries like Poland and Russia act the way they do in certain historical situations. While the video is on the limit for how long I can make it and still have it finished in around a month, I think I should have put more time to cover the surrounding countries than I currently have. If you have any more feedback, please me know. I'm going to make a few correction points in the pinned comments and the video description when I get up tomorrow. :)
@@quillinkhistory9539 No worries, I considered my points as more expansions than corrections. I'm also pretty sure that I recall some (especially older) Polish historiography casually referring to the UK as "England". :) BTW I described how the royal elections generally worked but the one in 1587 had some very special circumstances indeed (which I totally didn't completely forget somehow, while writing my comment). There were two large armed camps on the election field, nearly starting a regular battle. On one side the supporters of the powerful Chancellor and Hetman Jan Zamoyski, who kinda hoped to get the crown himself and was definitely determined to prevent the Habsburg candidate from taking it, on the other his opponents/Habsburg supporters. Plus "neutralists" and Lithuanians staying out of it. The deadlock lasted for 6 weeks until some nobles started going home, before a majority (Zamoyski included) finally agreed on Sigismund, as a compromise. But Zamoyski's enemies, including some powerful magnates, declared Archduke Maximilian III Habsburg the King anyway, and most Lithuanians refused to acknowledge the whole election as legit. Maximilian invaded with about 5 000 troops, joined by an additional 1 500 of his Polish supporters (according to Urszula Augustyniak), tried to get crowned in Cracow before Sigismund could get there, but was denied entrance and failed to take the city by force, subsequently being crushed by Zamoyski in the battle of Byczyna (24 I 1588). It took another, even more extraordinary, Pacification Sejm in 1589 to finally confirm Sigismund as Polish King.
@@Artur_M. Hi again Artur! I'm currently in the process of finishing the script for the second video which is going to cover Charles's conflict with Sigismund. I have a problem understanding the conflict from the polish perspective due to the literature being on Swedish history. If possible, do you know the answer to the two following questions? 1. Why did Sigismund wait so long with moving against Charles after he became informed that Charles was going against his orders in 1593? Did he believe it was unnecessary or did the expedition not have enough support from the polish nobility? 2. When Sigismund arrived in Sweden, he was accompanied by the polish guard(as well as by mercenaries). Is the polish guard a force of a couple hundred or several thousand?
Sigismund was generally terrible at navigating the parliamentary system of the "nobles' republic" and quickly alienated most of his supporters, including Zamoyski. Sigismund himself was also quite disapointed with the reality of "ruling" the Commonwealth. Since 1589 he had secret diplomatic dealings with the Habsburgs, behind the backs of even the Senators (some likely knew about them, but not the Senate as a whole), and a possibility of Sigismund's abdication was discussed during those dealings. When it was leaked to the public it was a huge scandal. In 1592 a "Inquisition Diet" (Sejm inkwizycyjny) convened to investigate the matter, while some (mainly the non-Catholics) were also accusing Sigismund of aiming to undermine the religious tolerance guaranteed by the Warsaw Confederation of 1573, which was made part of the Henrician Articles. So, even in Poland Sigismund's staunch Catholicism was creating problems. In summary Sigismund's position in Poland-Lithuania wasn't particularly strong either and the nobility wasn't too enthusiastic about financing any expensive military endeavors even in the best of circumstances. Plus there were problems in Ukraine, as usual, only getting worse, especially with the Commonwealth's own Cossack subjects. Also, Sigismund seemed to be reluctant to resolve the matter of the Swedish throne by spilling the blood of his Swedish subjects, as you can see in the recent video on the SandRhoman History channel about the campaign in Sweden: th-cam.com/video/gW3seLCrdno/w-d-xo.html You can also learn more from the comments below it, for example about Samuel Łaski capturing Stockholm in Sigismund's name with just 12 men. (You might also notice that I shamelessly basically copy-pasted much of my previous comment from here there.) I very much recommend the book _Northern Wars, State and Society in Northeastern Europe 1558-1721_ by Robert I. Frost. I admittedly haven't read it's entirety, but Frost is currently probably the best western historian of the Polish-Lithuanian state, very well versed in Polish sources and historiography (as well as Lithuanian, and so one) and an insightful one. Unfortunately, only the first volume of his Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania was published as of today, and it goes only to the Union of Lublin in 1569 (the formation of the Commonwealth).
@@quillinkhistory9539 BTW It's interesting how all the Polish books I checked: Stanisław Grzybowski, Dzieje Polski i Litwy (1506-1648). Wielka Historia Polski t.2, 2003. Urszula Augustyniak, Historia Polski 1572-1795, 2008. Jan Wimmer, Dawne Wojsko Polskie XVII-XVIII w., 2006. Just mention the 1598 expedition of Sigismund to Sweden in a very laconic way, without stating how many of his troops were Polish.
Hey, just found your channel, really great content! Also, this video is very interesting; as a fellow TH-camr, I know how much background research needs to be done for an episode like this! Keep up the awesome work.
Thanks for the kind comment. To spur discussion, I would actually disagree with you on the claim that Swedish society was more developed than other European countries at the time. While the country certainly got modernized and cached up with its neighbors during the reign of Gustav Vasa I don't think it surpassed them in any meaningful way. It should also be noted that the king's reforms, specially when it came to the reformation, made the country intellectually and culturally shallow since most cultural and scholarly activity up to that point had been carried out by people who were close to the catholic church. The activities at the countries only university at Uppsala even stopped completely during the sixteenth century and would not be taken back up for many decades. Feel free to let me know what you think :)
@@quillinkhistory9539 , You're right, these reforms were not good for the culture in the first decades. But in the long run, they improved the society. Compared to western Europe where at that time were wars between catholics and protestants, and Eastern Europe still in the middle ages, I can say that Sweden was much ready for a democratic system than the most part of Europe at that time.
@@HistoryClass While the reforms did help improve the states finances I fail to see what longterm improvement for society they can be said to have had. While its true that Sweden didn’t have any civil wars of religion, the country waged and managed to get itself long wars that constantly replaced each-other. As for the ”I can say that Sweden was much ready for a democratic system than the most part of Europe at that time.” statement, I disagree, I don’t think one can say such a thing. What does it mean for a country to be ”ready” for a democratic system, why was Sweden in particular more ready for it than other countries, and how does one substantiate such a claim? The swedish state during this time was very autocratic and the society was clearly stratified into different estates with associated rights and duties. There existed no concept such as the citizen nor concept any of universal rights. Nor did there exist any newspapers or other media which is a prerequisite for democracy to work. If someone had tried to advocate for democracy, it would have made little sense to anyone. While its true that the concept of calling parliaments in which representatives of different groups in the realm sent agreed on reforms started to become common during this time, that is not something inherently uniquely democratic. The idea that people living under a government should have some say in how it ran existed both in the middle ages as well as in modernity.
@@quillinkhistory9539, I agree that the long wars in which the Swedish state involved its citizens means lot of economic problems for them, but there were wars in a large part of Europe at that time. And is better to wage wars abroad, not to have them your own territory. Having wars on your own territory is much worse. What I meant that Sweden was much ready for a democratic system than the other parts of Europe is that Sweden didn't had a civil war like Britain, or a bloody revolution like France and other countries before the establishment of a democratic system. Maybe I'm mistaking, you know Swedish history better than me 😁
@@HistoryClass No worry man, I think I understand your point and I respect our disagreement. I think one should be careful though with attributing labels like democracy and dictatorship to early modern history since they are labels that don't apply to in that context. You are right that Sweden did not fight a civil war when establishing democracy though I think that has more to do with events as well as political, social, and economic processes that took place in the late eighteenth and during the nineteenth century that I think a quiet unrelated to what happened in Sweden during the sixteenth and seventeenth century and I also think that's largely the case for other European countries like England and France.
Are you Swedish? I only been Stockholm very briefly, but you pronounce the "ee" (i / y) similar to Stockholm dialect And your pronunciation is very good
@@quillinkhistory9539 as he was in love with a commoner that he later maried he is seen to have nobility againsnt him for it and that it would have led him to be paranoid Im not too good in writing english but hopefully you get what i tried to say 😅
Sort of. Between the riksdag of 1527 and another at 1592 Sweden had officially broken with the catholic church which did come with the inclusion of several protestant ideas and practices like the emphasis on preaching the "pure word of God", translating the bible to Swedish and allowing priests to marry. What the official stance of the church on the "work vs faith" question was I'm not sure. In some sense you could say that Sweden in practice was Lutheran before 1592 yet it hadn't declared any official stance(besides not being catholic). Duke Charles for example was more leaning towards calvinism than his brothers yet attended the church services in the church of Sweden like his brothers.
@@studiogimli7645 too late in the game most of the good land was taken so the colonies we did have were pretty usless and no setliments lasted long term.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Carolus Rex - Charles XII of Sweden - Sabaton History 084 [Official]](/img/n.gif)
Corrections
*I in the video I'm referring to the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth only as Poland. The reason is that the Swedish literature that I'm using only referred to it but after looking at more international literature I have decided to go with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth or just the commonwealth.
*Duke Charles duchy did not have an official title nor was called the duchy of Värmland. While Charles duchy did include Värmland it also included much more land in central Sweden which I forgot to include on the map.
Hi As I just stated the music makes your videos unwatchable. Could you please upload this with out music, I am very curious what you have to share.
@@MichaelMantion Nope
@@quillinkhistory9539 what happned to your channel?
Swedish history is super underrated and unknown, so glad your covering it
Happy to hear that! Still waiting for your next upload though :)
@@quillinkhistory9539 I get into animating, it takes a while then i begin to hate the project and restart, thus is the cycle, Im gonna not predict any of my uploads, itll jus be in your subbox or twitter feed when its done
Karls hair cut is great
It sure is one of a kind.
This entire series was really well done I enjoyed it.
Any plans for new videos?
I got so excited seeing the notification, not only because it's always great to see a new video from you, but also because I knew you will have to talk about Poland-Lithuania in this one!
With full admission to being a biased fanboy of the PLC, here are some notes that I have:
1. Bold of you to repeatedly refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Union (the Commonwealth since 1569) as simply 'Poland' and label it as such on the map showing mostly the Lithuanian part. I hope you won't get any angry Lithuanian comments. ;)
2. The image you used as the symbol of Poland-Lithuania, which is commonly shown on the internet as the flag of the PLC, is actually the royal banner of Sigismund III. In the heraldry depicted on it, you can see the Swedish coat of arms (including the Vasa family coat of arms) embedded within the Polish-Lithuanian one. I think that this particular design became so popular because we have a nice, detailed, and contemporary depiction of it from a 1605 painting, known in Polish as 'Rolka sztokholmska' and in Swedish as 'Polska rullen'. The painting itself has an interesting history, but that's a story probably better suited for the next video in this series.
3. Saying that Sigismund was elected by the Polish Diet (Sejm) is technically true but there's more to it. Since 1572 the so-called free royal elections, while happening during a special session of the Sejm, were open to not just its members (the Senators and the elected representatives in the lower chamber) but to all adult male nobles, that would arrive at the election field. It meant approximately tens of thousands of voters participating each time! (There nobility was very numerous, about 7-8% of the total population). Of course, before the vote, someone had to decide the list of candidates. It was done on another special session of the Sejm, known as Convocation. The Convocation Sejm ('Sejm konwokacyjny' in Polish) was also preparing a document known Pacta Conventa, which was sort of a contract, that the newly elected monarch would have to sign. It was different each time, except for the core part, known as the Henrician Articles.
Thanks for the feedback, Artur! To be honest, the naming of the commonwealth as just "Poland" was due to the literature that I was using. Swedish history literature seem to call Poland-Lithuania Poland and I came to reflect on it when I started a new EU4 campaign but by that time I was halfway through the editing and didn't have the time to edit it. I think ill be fine though. Worst case scenario, I'll just post an apology video where I cry in the camera for 5 min ;)
I didn't think about the Polish flag being the flag of Sigismund. Your right that the Vasa-symbol is in the middle, it's so small though that I completely missed it when I did the editing.
I wasn't aware of the special circumstance surrounding Sigismund's coronation and I appreciate that you point it out. I've come to realize that the Swedish literature that I use, while being good at covering Swedish history, not seldom tends to treat neighboring countries countries lightly, often glossing over the complexities of why foreign countries like Poland and Russia act the way they do in certain historical situations. While the video is on the limit for how long I can make it and still have it finished in around a month, I think I should have put more time to cover the surrounding countries than I currently have. If you have any more feedback, please me know. I'm going to make a few correction points in the pinned comments and the video description when I get up tomorrow. :)
@@quillinkhistory9539 No worries, I considered my points as more expansions than corrections. I'm also pretty sure that I recall some (especially older) Polish historiography casually referring to the UK as "England". :)
BTW I described how the royal elections generally worked but the one in 1587 had some very special circumstances indeed (which I totally didn't completely forget somehow, while writing my comment). There were two large armed camps on the election field, nearly starting a regular battle. On one side the supporters of the powerful Chancellor and Hetman Jan Zamoyski, who kinda hoped to get the crown himself and was definitely determined to prevent the Habsburg candidate from taking it, on the other his opponents/Habsburg supporters. Plus "neutralists" and Lithuanians staying out of it. The deadlock lasted for 6 weeks until some nobles started going home, before a majority (Zamoyski included) finally agreed on Sigismund, as a compromise. But Zamoyski's enemies, including some powerful magnates, declared Archduke Maximilian III Habsburg the King anyway, and most Lithuanians refused to acknowledge the whole election as legit. Maximilian invaded with about 5 000 troops, joined by an additional 1 500 of his Polish supporters (according to Urszula Augustyniak), tried to get crowned in Cracow before Sigismund could get there, but was denied entrance and failed to take the city by force, subsequently being crushed by Zamoyski in the battle of Byczyna (24 I 1588). It took another, even more extraordinary, Pacification Sejm in 1589 to finally confirm Sigismund as Polish King.
@@Artur_M. Hi again Artur! I'm currently in the process of finishing the script for the second video which is going to cover Charles's conflict with Sigismund. I have a problem understanding the conflict from the polish perspective due to the literature being on Swedish history. If possible, do you know the answer to the two following questions?
1. Why did Sigismund wait so long with moving against Charles after he became informed that Charles was going against his orders in 1593? Did he believe it was unnecessary or did the expedition not have enough support from the polish nobility?
2. When Sigismund arrived in Sweden, he was accompanied by the polish guard(as well as by mercenaries). Is the polish guard a force of a couple hundred or several thousand?
Sigismund was generally terrible at navigating the parliamentary system of the "nobles' republic" and quickly alienated most of his supporters, including Zamoyski. Sigismund himself was also quite disapointed with the reality of "ruling" the Commonwealth. Since 1589 he had secret diplomatic dealings with the Habsburgs, behind the backs of even the Senators (some likely knew about them, but not the Senate as a whole), and a possibility of Sigismund's abdication was discussed during those dealings. When it was leaked to the public it was a huge scandal. In 1592 a "Inquisition Diet" (Sejm inkwizycyjny) convened to investigate the matter, while some (mainly the non-Catholics) were also accusing Sigismund of aiming to undermine the religious tolerance guaranteed by the Warsaw Confederation of 1573, which was made part of the Henrician Articles. So, even in Poland Sigismund's staunch Catholicism was creating problems. In summary Sigismund's position in Poland-Lithuania wasn't particularly strong either and the nobility wasn't too enthusiastic about financing any expensive military endeavors even in the best of circumstances. Plus there were problems in Ukraine, as usual, only getting worse, especially with the Commonwealth's own Cossack subjects.
Also, Sigismund seemed to be reluctant to resolve the matter of the Swedish throne by spilling the blood of his Swedish subjects, as you can see in the recent video on the SandRhoman History channel about the campaign in Sweden:
th-cam.com/video/gW3seLCrdno/w-d-xo.html
You can also learn more from the comments below it, for example about Samuel Łaski capturing Stockholm in Sigismund's name with just 12 men. (You might also notice that I shamelessly basically copy-pasted much of my previous comment from here there.)
I very much recommend the book _Northern Wars, State and Society in Northeastern Europe 1558-1721_ by Robert I. Frost. I admittedly haven't read it's entirety, but Frost is currently probably the best western historian of the Polish-Lithuanian state, very well versed in Polish sources and historiography (as well as Lithuanian, and so one) and an insightful one. Unfortunately, only the first volume of his Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania was published as of today, and it goes only to the Union of Lublin in 1569 (the formation of the Commonwealth).
@@quillinkhistory9539 BTW It's interesting how all the Polish books I checked:
Stanisław Grzybowski, Dzieje Polski i Litwy (1506-1648). Wielka Historia Polski t.2, 2003.
Urszula Augustyniak, Historia Polski 1572-1795, 2008.
Jan Wimmer, Dawne Wojsko Polskie XVII-XVIII w., 2006.
Just mention the 1598 expedition of Sigismund to Sweden in a very laconic way, without stating how many of his troops were Polish.
I hope you come back soon and I hope you are well.
This is simply a great topic and a great video
Hey, just found your channel, really great content! Also, this video is very interesting; as a fellow TH-camr, I know how much background research needs to be done for an episode like this! Keep up the awesome work.
Great work.
Thank you
Big up mate, great job👍✌️
Thanks Mate! :)
Part 2?
Interesting Swedish 16th century history video 😀 Swedish society was much more developed than other European countries at the time
Thanks for the kind comment. To spur discussion, I would actually disagree with you on the claim that Swedish society was more developed than other European countries at the time. While the country certainly got modernized and cached up with its neighbors during the reign of Gustav Vasa I don't think it surpassed them in any meaningful way. It should also be noted that the king's reforms, specially when it came to the reformation, made the country intellectually and culturally shallow since most cultural and scholarly activity up to that point had been carried out by people who were close to the catholic church. The activities at the countries only university at Uppsala even stopped completely during the sixteenth century and would not be taken back up for many decades. Feel free to let me know what you think :)
@@quillinkhistory9539 , You're right, these reforms were not good for the culture in the first decades. But in the long run, they improved the society. Compared to western Europe where at that time were wars between catholics and protestants, and Eastern Europe still in the middle ages, I can say that Sweden was much ready for a democratic system than the most part of Europe at that time.
@@HistoryClass While the reforms did help improve the states finances I fail to see what longterm improvement for society they can be said to have had. While its true that Sweden didn’t have any civil wars of religion, the country waged and managed to get itself long wars that constantly replaced each-other.
As for the ”I can say that Sweden was much ready for a democratic system than the most part of Europe at that time.” statement, I disagree, I don’t think one can say such a thing. What does it mean for a country to be ”ready” for a democratic system, why was Sweden in particular more ready for it than other countries, and how does one substantiate such a claim? The swedish state during this time was very autocratic and the society was clearly stratified into different estates with associated rights and duties. There existed no concept such as the citizen nor concept any of universal rights. Nor did there exist any newspapers or other media which is a prerequisite for democracy to work. If someone had tried to advocate for democracy, it would have made little sense to anyone.
While its true that the concept of calling parliaments in which representatives of different groups in the realm sent agreed on reforms started to become common during this time, that is not something inherently uniquely democratic. The idea that people living under a government should have some say in how it ran existed both in the middle ages as well as in modernity.
@@quillinkhistory9539, I agree that the long wars in which the Swedish state involved its citizens means lot of economic problems for them, but there were wars in a large part of Europe at that time. And is better to wage wars abroad, not to have them your own territory. Having wars on your own territory is much worse. What I meant that Sweden was much ready for a democratic system than the other parts of Europe is that Sweden didn't had a civil war like Britain, or a bloody revolution like France and other countries before the establishment of a democratic system. Maybe I'm mistaking, you know Swedish history better than me 😁
@@HistoryClass No worry man, I think I understand your point and I respect our disagreement. I think one should be careful though with attributing labels like democracy and dictatorship to early modern history since they are labels that don't apply to in that context. You are right that Sweden did not fight a civil war when establishing democracy though I think that has more to do with events as well as political, social, and economic processes that took place in the late eighteenth and during the nineteenth century that I think a quiet unrelated to what happened in Sweden during the sixteenth and seventeenth century and I also think that's largely the case for other European countries like England and France.
What the hell is with the EEEEE at the end of every sentence
Bro when are you making part 2 of this??
Man imagine if Sweden and Poland were united.
Can we do a collaboration?
Are you Swedish? I only been Stockholm very briefly, but you pronounce the "ee" (i / y) similar to Stockholm dialect
And your pronunciation is very good
Yup, your correct :)
@@quillinkhistory9539 Är det därför du har så långa E, I, A och annat, brotheeersss
He is speaking as if he is reading English text with Swedish pronunciation...
👍👍👍
Bra skit!
In finland we see erik as a tragic figure 🤔
That's interesting. Can you elaborate? :) In Sweden is mainly remembered as a mainiac.
@@quillinkhistory9539 as he was in love with a commoner that he later maried he is seen to have nobility againsnt him for it and that it would have led him to be paranoid
Im not too good in writing english but hopefully you get what i tried to say 😅
So we’re Sweden religion Protestant.?
Sort of. Between the riksdag of 1527 and another at 1592 Sweden had officially broken with the catholic church which did come with the inclusion of several protestant ideas and practices like the emphasis on preaching the "pure word of God", translating the bible to Swedish and allowing priests to marry. What the official stance of the church on the "work vs faith" question was I'm not sure. In some sense you could say that Sweden in practice was Lutheran before 1592 yet it hadn't declared any official stance(besides not being catholic). Duke Charles for example was more leaning towards calvinism than his brothers yet attended the church services in the church of Sweden like his brothers.
Dead channel?
Why didn't Swede's colonize America like British, Spanish, French, Portuguese
they tried some african and american colonies, not sure why they didn't do much
@@studiogimli7645 too late in the game most of the good land was taken so the colonies we did have were pretty usless and no setliments lasted long term.
Not enough population to send any serious colonization attempts.
Hi. Are you historian???