Thanks to our Patreons! If you would like to join them, check out our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory Thanks to Bartosz Muscialowicz, there are Polish subtitles for this one as well. Just a quick correction: There are two mistakes in our video. One of them is a minor spoiler to the video so maybe read this after you’ve watched the video. Firstly, Poland-Lithuania was in a real union at the time we’re discussing here. Not a personal union. Secondly, One of Sigismund’s commanders took Stockholm, not he himself.
*"Secondly, One of Sigismund’s commanders took Stockholm, not he himself."* --- Yup. To be more precise Stockholm was captured by Samuel Łaski who commanded a unit of... 12 men.
A couple of more notes and critiques from finnish historiography perspective, I understand this side of the events might be underrepresented in the bibliography available. Björneborg (typoed in the map) is not really a relevant town at this point, alas the city privilegios were granted to the town by duke John, but as a power base it is completly irrelevant for most of the Finnish history. Åbo was far more important, and it was there where Klaus Fleming the commander of the royal army resided. He was the most prominent royalist in Sweden. Without him (ruthlessly) controlling the Österland (Finland), Chalres would have had no trouble of deposing Sigismund. Fleming's ruthlesness did lead to a peasant rebellion. The finnish peasantry had been heavily war-taxed during the Russian conlifct going on and off for half a century, but they finally lost their temper when Fleming insisted on upkeeping soldiers during peace time to have an army at hand to balance the power against Charles. Charles had a small part agitating the peasantry for "his cause", but more modern historiography tends to favor the theory of the peasantry rebelling because of long lasting issues on how the local nobility treated and taxed them mostly ignorning the rule of law.
I really enjoyed this video. In school we learned all about Western Europe, but we missed all the fascinating history of the rest of Europe. Please tell more stories about Sweden and Poland and the Baltic region.
@@GajuszJuliusCyvilis yes, I grew up in the States. Our history classes focused on the colonizers of the Americas - France, the UK, Spain and Portugal. Except for the World Wars, we never studied in depth about any other countries. For example, I remember having to name all the kings of France and kings and queens of England for a test. We never even discussed rulers of countries like Sweden or Poland. I learned about them on my own, out of my own passion for history, but I want to know more. Unfortunately for me, I don’t understand any of the Baltic languages. Channels like this one are so important to people like me.
After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660 by Robert Frost - a great follow up book to this video. Robert Frost is overall perfect if you want to learn the history of that region. That is his specialty and obsession.
I'm a swede, and learned a little bit about this in school, but don't remember much. It's really nice that you're delving more into both Swedish and Polish history, which a lot of other history channels don't mention much.
As an American it was the fact that my paternal grandfather was a Polish soldier and later finding Sabaton, that got me intrested in Polish and Swedish history.
No! Its a horrible story! The "Swedish Deluge" killed 25% of Poland's population for no other purpose than to feed the vanity of Charles X. I think we heard quite enough about Swedish-Polish history already and its about time that Sandrhoman started talking about kinder and humbler people. Like Pizarro or Cromwell or some such.
@@martinan22 I had no idea about how many were killed in this war. But not talking about it won't inform anyone about it. It's much better to bring it up. Maybe Sandrhoman should make a video about these casualties.
@@Astillion Yea yea, I know. And a lot of the deaths came from Pole against Pole. That is what that kind of non centralized state is like. But Charles X campaign became so horrible that it was unite or die for the Poles, the brutality of the Swedish invasion became a nation founding moment for the Poles. Check out the story of the Black Madonna if you like.
I'm so glad to see more videos on the wars of Poland-Lithuania/Sweden/Russia (besides world wars/cold war) Very underrepresented in western history books/videos
I love to see the history of the Commonwealth being popularised! Excellent video (my one problem with it was already addressed and corrected by SandRhoman in a comment). BTW The very election of Sigismund in 1587 was exceptionally tense and disputed, much of which was related to the complex internal Polish-Lithuanian politics, which would take too long to explain. Two armed camps formed 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 initially 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).
A very good but still short break down of the politics can be found on the BBC podcast "in our time". It features three historians, among them Robert I Frost who we quoted frequently in our video. They discuss the Polish-Lithuanians politcal system and how it was (later on) exploited by foreign powers. It's very much worth a watch!
@@SandRhomanHistory The podcast is indeed great! I especially liked the ending remarks by Prof. Frost. In my comment, I meant less how the whole system worked (although that too) and more why was the situation in 1587 so tense in particular. But to explain that I would likely write whole paragraphs about the career of Jan Zamoyski, the life, trial and execution of the (in)famous troublemaker Samuel Zborowski, and the whole personal, familiar and political drama around it.
The funny thing is that any time I had an opportunity to talk about the Polish-Swedish Union and Sigismund with people from Sweden they always portray him as some cartoony evil bloodthirsty Catholic. I always mention the Battle of Stegeborg as an obvious example of how Sigismund cared for Sweden and Swedish people. In fact, during his whole reign, he was always accused of caring for Sweden, a kingdom that rejected him, much more than for Commonwealth.
@@gabrielvanhauten4169 maybe so, but he tried to sell polish crown to Habsburgs (he was stopped by the chancellor Jan Zamoyski who defended the polish throne from Habsburgs for him earlier), he also denied to renounce the title of the king of Sweden and led the Commonwealth to a series of wars against Sweden in hope to regain the throne, which were exhausting and pointless for the Commonwealth. Polish historians have ambivalent judgment of him, he wasn't a great king, but the Commonwealth was at the height of it's power during his reign and considering how awful some of the later kings were, his flawes and opportunities he wasted can be forgiven.
@@gabrielvanhauten4169 at least he was accused of trying to sell the Polish crown. If there's anti-Sigmund propaganda in Poland it was made by his political opponents during his life.
The upbringing could not have been that fun for him being raised in another country. And he was not any more evil than any other average Swedish King or nobleman of that time. So in a way one can feel sympathy for him. But on the other hand was he a lame monarch
As a Swede I never thought of him that way. He seemed like a good king. Carl IX on the other hand was mentally unstable, extremely bad tempered and had quite a bloody reign.
Poland and Sweden are often neglected by historians, though they both played important roles in European history. John III Sobieski of Poland rescued Vienna from the Turks in 1683, and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden revived the Protestant cause when it was about to collapse during the 30 Years War.
Cool time period that I feel gets less attention than the Thirty Years War or earlier events in Western Europe. Thanks for the summary. It's interesting to see Vasa's attempts to straddle the line between being king of both nations with his choice in pursuit and promises made in negotiations.
I'm a Swede, and a soldier and teacher, and I really hope Swedes and Poles will grow closer over time. I know our cultures differ, and our mindsets are not always the same, but I believe we could gain much from making our little corner of this world a good one. I lost many ancestors in the wars against the poles, for good and ill, but for my part I have nothing but love for our southern brothers. May your days be happy and peaceful, and know that if you ever come visit me in Ångermanland, in my ancestorial home, I'm buying the beer!
Just imagine if Poland, Lithuania and Sweden united in the late 16 or early 17th century... That would be most powerful empire in history of European continent! Instead we had series of wars, conflicts and nobility going on personal gain campaigns which has left Commonwealth in crumbles by the end of 17th century. What a shame.
Truly awesome content! But I think there is a slight mistep around 2:26: +- "...at that time Poland was in a personal union with Lithuania..". Polish historiography tends to distinguish period of personal union (pre-1569) and so-called "actual" union (post 1.07.1569). Since we are talking about the latter period, we are in the times of actual union, not just the personal one. Ps. Also, from the Polish perspective King Sigismund is often seen as a king of a lost chances. Twice he had an opportunity to grant his son a neighbouring kingdom, allowing Vasas to build a potential dynastic union, at the expense of his (son's) conversion, and twice he refused...
As a Swede I've actually never heard of this part of our history in detail, cheers! As thanks for the knowledge I'll provide some language tips ;P. You pronounce the Ö perfectly however the "K" in linköping and the Å's were a bit off. Starting with the K sound, it usually sounds like how you pronounced it however sometimes it's a "sh" sound or a "soft K" sound like "Cz" in Czechia. Köping is one of those words. others are Kyla (cold), kyss (kiss), kör (to drive. though choir is spelled the same but pronounced with a hard K). The other letter "Å" is pronounced like a short "O" sound in English, luckily this does not have any strange changes like the "Ö" has so an "Å" is always the same sound. Lastly just for fun the Ä should be pronounced like the first "A" sound in Damnation, a sort of long hard A. (also last but not least, I think you guys dropped an R in "Björneborg" at 4:11 :P)
Was just about to mention many of these points... but as a Canadian who worked on Learning Swedish on his own in High School and had a fascination with most all Germanic langauges since then. Glad someone - yourself in this instance, has put everything important down more directly and probably correctly down for other's benefit.
Ah, you missed a great opportunity in this video! Everytime anyone mentions Hertig Karl (Duke Charles) I think it should be required by law to show his portrait with his insane hairstyle! :) Can't wait until it comes back into fashion! Thank you for this video, feels nice to hear of my home of Uppland being invaded
For anyone wondering, the name "Sausage campaign" is derived from the victorious supporters of duke Charles capturing the backpacks of their Finnish opponents (who fled after very brief skirmishes). The bags were apparently full of sausages, which makes sense since they are a durable, cheap and nutritious food.
I'd like to suggest if you could put a little timestamp on the edge of the screen so we can easily keep track of the events and the time each one happened. I love your videos!
to be honest, we had help from Poles. Mainly by Bartosz Musialowicz who helped us producing our last vid on Khotyn. It's quite hard to get these maps right as most maps around the internet are just not correct. Our fast draft were pretty wrong but Bartosz kept insisting that we change them which was difficult but in the end was a good thing ;)
Discovered your channel recently so hello to al! I am enjoying your informative videos, they're really addictive; but I wonder a mysterious part of European history. I would really be thankful if you do a vid on Rosicrucianism. Things like the free masonry, and Illuminati are widely covered by a lot of popular channels. But I can't find much on Rosicrucianism. So maybe it will be a success and will help more people understanding the human kind and their history! Keep on going on whit the good work. And I hope you enjoy it while doing so!
Fun story :Johan's separate marriage negotiations with Sigismund over Catherine Jagiellon was one of the issues that triggered King Erik to send an army to Finland and capture his brother. Erik tried to send Catherine back to Poland but she refused to leave her new husband. Sigismund was born while the couple were prisoners at Gripsholm castle. They were released when the king got mad starting to kill of important nobles he suspected were trying to kill him, Which led to the nobility rallying behind Johan to depose him. After a number of counterplots to restore Eriks' rule it's said he was killed by poisoned pea soup.
As a man from Södermanland i never knew we the Sörmlanders and Duke were the key players in the fight for liberty from Poland and it made me proud. Thank you
How was it a fight for liberty from Poland? Poles literally refused to give support to Sigismund. He had to borrow the money for his campaign and all Poles in his army were mercenaries.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 i don't mean freedom from the polish people I mean freedom from sigismund people don't matter in politics and war if neither are democracies and I general historically
@@xlaxelnoreen I mean Sigismund wasnt a tyrant or anything, he was literally half swedish, the only reason he was disliked in sweden was because he was Catholic essentially, hes pretty typical of a 17th (well technically it happened in the late late 16th century) monarch
@@lordpolish2727 i know he wasn't a tyrant. I know he was Swedish ish. He as a person was pretty nice for the era. But if we didn't rise up then Sweden would become a part of Poland/the commonwealth and we would lose our independence. And yes we weren't keen on becoming Catholics again
@@xlaxelnoreen I don’t find it likely Sweden would join Poland, the two nations were too different, it from my perspective would be pretty equal of a union that would contend mostly against Russia and Denmark.
In primary and high school in czech republic. We are only taught the history, which can support our patriotism, so we always gloryfy "our" most famous leaders. I like how you do not glorify any of the sites. Keep doing the great job!
Denmark looks so much better on a map when they had Scania. Copenhagen was much more strategically placed and was basically in the centre of the country.
Not really. Sigismund was weak King. And while Poland was a great power militarily, economically, politically and culturally.. it was also ruled by a very weak King. And the nobles blocked necessary reforms that could make the state apparatus more effiecent.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 ohh, another d@mb polish patriot. read some books before visiting internet. Union of Brest 1595 - decision of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to break relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church and to enter into communion with catholics under the authority of the Pope of Rome. This ended up with a strong ortodox rebellion, defeat of polish King, his capture and potop kurwa
2:20 Since the Union of Lublin in 1569 the Polish-Lithuanian Union wasn't just a personal union (separate states, with separate goverments, linked only by the person of the monarch), but it was a real union, with one crown and one parliament. Compare with the union of England and Scotland in 1707.
It is difficult to to understand why such a big empire collapsed so easily, without explaining an extraordinary political system that was in the Polish-Bielorusian Republic ( Rzeczpospolita ). In Poland they use the name Rzeczpospolita which means Respublica. 1.This was a noblmen democracy were since 1572 king was elected by noblemen , he was more like a president , and had no much power. 2.The real power was rested with the parlament ( Sejm ) , were a noblemen representatives had a LIBERUM VETO power. If one noblemen representative during the Sejm proceedings said VETO than all laws enacted during the entire Sejm proceedings had to be aborted, and the Sejm was dissolved, and every body had to go home. 3. The foreign powers were bribing noblemen to use the LIBERUM VETO power in 1700's to break most Sejms. So entire political system of the Republic was being paralyzed and the Republic became defenseless. 4. Noblemen were refusing any taxation to raise army, so the king almost never had a standing army, while the local magnates had they own private armies. 5. If noblemen felt being oppressed by the king they had legal right to enact a confederacy to fight against the king and it did happen many times. 6. In spite of all of this, right to the very last partition of the Republic the noblemen overwhelmingly thought that the Republic has the best political system in the world. 7. As a result, since 1717 Russia had a permanent military garrisons in Poland , and Russians said that this was for the purpose to safeguard Polish democracy. They just wanted to prevent any political reforms in Poland. And when in 1791 the Republic made an effort to radically change her political system by enacting the first in Europe constitution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_3_May_1791 , Russia and Prussia did second Partition of the Republic.
Sounds like the "Age of liberty" in Sweden. The power of the King was strongly limited. It was also a nobleman democracy. Foreign powers also bribed the political parties. Foreign powers played the game to keep this system in place so that Sweden would remain weak and dysfunctional. The Swedish speaking nobility in Finland began lusting for Finland to break off from the country and become independent or fall under Russian rule instead. The Spanish empire had some of the same problems too. Only Castile paid taxes, which is of course absurd when you see that not just Castile but also all of Spain needed military protection, and so did Italy, North Africa, South America, Belgium, the Netherlands and other places of the empire. The nobles in the rest of the empire refused to pay their fair share. And the King backed down from confrontation, the wars was not so costly to begin with and American gold could pay for them. But then more and more wars was started. And war debts grew. And the gold and silver was not enough to cover the costs. So King was forced to raise taxes to avoid bankruptcy. Holland hated taxes and religious opression so they declared independence. And a war in Holland sucked more money. Taxes had to increase even more. But the nobility in Italy and Spain refused to pay anything unless they got more independence from Spain. So Spain fought wars on foreign countries, Holland and Portugal declared independence. The economic problems were huge and parts of the Kingdom became more and more independent from Spain in exchange for the right to Spain to tax those lands. And finally was the Spanish monarchy as weak as it was before the empire was created. Also France, Denmark and the Austro-Hungrian empire was left dysfunctional because of their strong nobility. Denmarks nobility refused to pay taxes or to let their farmers join the army. So Denmark could therefore not build a professional standing army. And that made them instead rely on mercenaries which in the long run gave them an army less effective than that of other countries which had a standing army (like Spain and Sweden). So the country got badly beaten in some wars with its neighbours. And once the country had learned its lesson and forced the nobility to loosen their grip, then it was already too late. Half of the country's provinces had already been lost to foreign powers. One country would however have serfdom and remain succesful - and that was Russia. A country where the nobility was so strong that it would be more fair to call people slaves instead of serfs. The country would however remain much backwards in the 1800s and 1900s.
wait a god damn minute. if I had a nickle for every time Finland was involved in a conflict named sausage, I'd have two nickles. It's not a lot but it's strange that it happened twice. first sausage war: 6:21 second sausage war: 10th December 1938, battle of Varolampi pond aka "the sausage war" Also you can bet your ass I'll be referring to the battle of Vamrolampi pont as "the second Sausage war" from here on out lmfao
Hi, very good material. It's maybe interersting point to make, that Sigismund the 3rd, from the stance of his individual qualities (or rather the lack of those) as well as his extreme (for the liberal Commonwealth's standards) conservativeness is being perceived as the largest tragedy in Polish history and the biggest single factor to the downfall of the country (which he initiated). Very much in the contrast to his predecesor, Stefan Batory, he lived long and unsucessful life, hated by all and destroying everything he touched, well example of so called reverse - Midas :)
I wonder what qualifies as "conservativeness" here? Him being religious? Well, one could equally blame the religious minorities for putting their religious convictions over the public good of the Commonwealth. It's a double edged sword. Him trying to have more power than the Diet? Well, back in the 16-17th centuries it was not a sign of "conservatism" - quite to the contrary, "enlightened despots" were a wet dream of the "progressives" of the time. Or maybe his patronage of the arts and sciences was somehow "conservative"?
@@jurisprudens Quite literally being the great protagonist of the counter reformation and the endorser of the jesuit order. And it doesn't matter either the jesuits were or were not involved in doing science at that point. Everyone supporting counter reformation is by default a conservative. Keep in mind that while someone might see being conservative as a bad thing, for the conservatives it is not so, similar to being a communist and so on. All the other things are not important, as a king might have been either liberal or conservative AND try to take the power from the diet and also, a king might have been either liberal or conservative and still be effective or not. In case of Sigismund the 3rd he was conservative waste of human flesh, but he would be (most likely) as disastrous as liberal ruler.
@@ukaszzyka6279 Well, I doubt Jesuits could be described as “conservative”. Just like the Counter-Reformation. It was not about “preserving the status quo” - Counter-Reformation worked largely through reforming the church governance (e.g., getting rid of the privileges of monasteries, strengthening the bishops, uniformity in education and liturgy). Just like the Protestants cannot be seen as liberal: they literally wanted to “restore” what they thought was “the original Christianity”, without “subsequent innovations”.
The beginning of the end for the Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealth which disappeared from the map in 1795, was electing Sigismund Vasa as King of Poland. Because of his obstinate Catholicism he even lost Moscow taken by the Poles and Lithuanians in 1610 because he refused a request by the Russian Boyars to allow his son to sit of the Russian Throne on the condition of him converting to the Orthodox fault.
To me, the comparison to Stannis suits Zygmunt more than to the King in the North. "The Swedish throne is mine by rights. All those who deny that are my foes."
But the title of the video didn't quite call him that but rather that he tried to be that in addition to being the king of Poland. Also, he failed. (Oops, spoilers.)
@@seneca983 Sweden was a hereditary monarchy. He was merely elected King of Poland. Sigismund was born and raised as the crown prince of Sweden, naturally he greatly resented the usurpation.
Sigismund was a fool who did not follow up his victory at Stegeborg with harsher policy. Charles IX would never make such a mistake. It spelled the end of any chance at a revival of Catholocism in Sweden and the beginning of so much destruction. "Fun" fact, Gustav Baner was a member of the high Swedish nobility that was executed by Charles IX in "the Bloodbath of Linköping" for having sided with Sigismund and then refusing to admit it was treason to support his lawful king. However, his son, Johan Baner, became the most talented and ruthless general of the son of Charles IX, Gustavus Adolphus. So let that be a lesson kids, mercy is punished and harshness is rewarded.
You should make a video about the battle of Cochin (1504) where 150 portuguese and 10k cochinese won against 80k soldiers of Calecut and it´s allies without any casualties.
1. Polish Lithuanian Union prof. Robert Frost th-cam.com/video/MTrbR4stbhY/w-d-xo.html 2. Commonwealth of Diverse Cultures (Poland-Lithuania) prof. Norman Davis th-cam.com/video/Hl7t19eXy88/w-d-xo.html 3. The Noblemen's Democracy of Poland and Lithuania th-cam.com/video/TW_hcZCY6QM/w-d-xo.html 4. Gaude Mater Polonia , the first Polish anthem th-cam.com/video/Wv8LriCtwxE/w-d-xo.html
The country had a nobility (a bunch of rich and powerful men) who cared more about making themselves richer and powerful than they cared about the well-being of their own country. The Kings of Poland therefore not that powerful. Power was more spread out into many hands, while in some other countries it was more centralized into the hands of the King. So a rich and powerful country like Poland could perhaps only use 5-10% of its real potential. But a country like Sweden that was poor and had a small population, had a weak nobility and a stronger King could make use of 100% of the potential of Sweden. This made it possible for Sweden to raise big armies and punch above its own weight, and even knocking out Great powers like Russia, Poland and Germany on the battlefield. The wars with Sweden did also ruin Poland. The struggle Sweden and Poland did not just end with wars between the two countries. It also led to wars with other countries. Russia was in a civil war in the early 1600s. And both Sweden and Poland invaded Russia because they wanted to put a new King in power. Poland wanted a Polish King over Russia. While Sweden did want to put a Swedish King over Russia. So because of this did Poland get involved in wars with Russia. In 1650s did the Swedish army once again invade Poland. And the country suffered terrible destruction. 20% of Polands population died. Also other countries joined in and attacked Poland. The Swedish troops failed to end the war with a Swedish victory, and the speedy blitzkrieg turned into a slow Vietnam war with guerilla fighting against the Swedish occupation army. Then did Denmark declare war on Sweden, and the Swedish King took most of his army in Poland and sent it to invade Denmark. But the damage to Poland had already been done. The country have been much weakened by this war. Not until nazi-Germany and Soviet union took over the country would such a large proportion of the population die. And for that reason is Sweden named in the Polish national anthem. So after the many wars had Sweden been a bit exhausted when Russia declared war on it. The Swedish military historian Lars-Ericson Wolke says this could have been one of the reasons why it became Russia and not Sweden that won the power struggle of becoming the strongest power in Northern Europe. Personally I do disagree with him. He also says that Poland also fell victim to Russian agression for the same reason. The country was left weak and in a bad shape over 100 years after the Deluge, so it could not offer much resistence when it was carved up by Austria, Prussia and Russia.
@@nattygsbord the next videos if there are more will show you how, Jan II Waza's reign was a dissaster in an almost apocalyptic way, the cossacks rebelled, they faced invasion from 3 foreign powers and some of its powerful magnates were traitors, that The Commonwealth survived The Deluge is almost a miracle.
@@g.sergiusfidenas6650 Sweden also nearly suffered the same fate as Poland. Frederick the Great, Denmark and Russia had made a secret plan to carve up the country, because its nobility had mismanaged the country so much that in the next best oppurtunity with a little interior conflicts - which there were many in the 1700s - would Sweden be divided up by its neigbours. And they would probably have succeded had the plan ever been acted upon. Instead did Russia and Prussia carve up Poland in 1772, while the Swedish King restored the absolutist monarchy rule. And thereby was Sweden allowed to live for a few decades more. But the century of stagnation caused by mismanagement by the ruling class (the nobility) did in the end doom Sweden in 1809 when it lost Finland and soon also German Pomerania.
@@nattygsbord Ironically, when Turks start planing to atack Vienna in 1683, King of Poland John 3rd Sobieski actually wanted to destroy rising Prussia together with Sweden, that swift change of foreign policy of PLC from centre of Ukraine to North/Baltic Sea was named as 'Baltic policy'. Poland according to his plans would have taken East Prussia and Sweden would have Pomerania/Brandeburg. But after political games, he choose to help Austrians.
Never heard of this war. Probably because the Thirty Years War is more important to a variety of states / nations than this conflict. Was is of European interest at the time or was it ignored by the west? I mean Sweden become an important player later on but the Polish-Lith Commonwealth not really. Only at vienna right?
Gustavus Adolphus feared Poland more than the German emperor. Poland was Swedens enemy no.1 and the war in Germany, as large as it might be was seen as a side show to the war in Poland. The Polish King had claims to the Swedish throne, and an attempt to take over Sweden could only end in the Swedish King getting beheaded if it succeded, so the power struggle with Poland was an existential one for the Swedish monarchy. The most important reason for joining the war in Germany was because the Holy Roman emperor was an ally of Poland. And if he got too strong and gained control over northern Germany and started to build a fleet, then Sweden would have a powerful enemy with so much recources that it would be impossible to defeat him. Especially when he was allied with Poland. Also Catholic Spain was allied with Poland. And the plans to use Spanish ships to transport Polish troops to invade Sweden was something that the Swedish King Gustavus feared a lot.
Relax... This is not a swedish video. Slappna av, du kommer inte att skita på dig för det. Du fattar väl varför det sägs på det sättet eller kämpar du med grundskolekompetensen på Komvux??? Jag skriver detta på svenska för att bespara dig skammen...
Swedens past is unknown. Much of the documented history of the middle ages was probably lost forver when the Royal castle three crowns burned down in 1697. It is believed that Eric the Victorious was Swedens first King when he took the throne in 970AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_the_Victorious Later on would he be follwed by a bunch over other Kings and Finland was settled around 1000-1100 AD. It was a weak state with much nobles that held most of the power. Civil wars happened because some nobles lusted for more power. And the country fell under Danish rule with the Kalmar Union. Denmark was richer and more densly populated than Sweden and modern ideas from Europe had a closer reach to Denmark than to backwards Sweden, so it became natural for the Danish-Swedish-Norwegian King to have his seat in Denmark and not in Sweden. That made the Swedish nobles feel like the Danish Kings took no interest in Sweden and that they constantly favored Denmark at Swedens expense. And when the Danish King tried to centralize the rule of the Kingdom and take away Swedens independence it did cause much anger within the Swedish nobility. And when Danish noblemen did know the Danish King better and had his trust, then they were much more likely to get the top jobs of ruling over Swedish provinces. And that angered the Swedish nobility so much that war with Denmark was started. But then Christian II of Denmark settled peace with Sweden. He came to Sweden to Stockholm to celebrate that he had become King, and all former enemies was invited and forgiven he said. So they had a meal inside a castle. And almost the entire Swedish nobility was there. But then suddenly the doors were locked and guards arrested all the nobles. And the entire nobility was led outdoors and had their heads cut off one by one... This event is known as "Stockholm's bloodbath" because so many people died that day that the streets were covered in blood from hundreds of people that the Danish had killed. One Swedish nobleman never trusted the Danish King so never came to his party. That was Gustav Eriksson Vasa. His father was one of those noblemen that Christian had killed. Gustav realized that also his life was in danger so he tried to flee up into northern Sweden where the Danes would have it difficult to find him. And he managed to get some Swedish miners on his side in an uprising against the Danes. And more people joined the uprising when they heard the news of what the Danish King had done. And soon it became impossible for the Danes to keep control over the country. Only a few castles could still be defended, while the countryside was impossible to control. Gustav Vasa now became the first King of the modern day Sweden. He only had one problem. And that was that he could not conquer the key cities of Sweden because he lacked artillery and mercenary troops. So he talked with the German Hanseatic league, who happily helped him making their enemy the Danish King weaker. Gustav Vasa could now finally get all of Sweden under his control. The war was won. But the economy was bad. He now had huge debts to the Hansa. And if he could not pay them, then his Kingdoms days would soon be numbered. So what did the Swedish King do? - He plundered the churches. Gustav was a greedy person who lacked morals and he had no religious conviction. He made his country protestant only so he could get control over the church and being able to steal all silver, church bells and other valuable stuff the church had. And now he could pay off his debts to the Hansa. The problem was now solved. He was a totalitarian dictator who ruled the country with an ironfist. And taking control over the church was all about increasing his own power. He now had control over the news that was spread in churches and used it for his own propaganda. For the first time did Sweden now get a system where the King did inherit his throne from his father after he died. His oldest son Eric the 14th became the 2nd King of Sweden when Gustav died. And after him did John III take over after his brother had become mentally insane, John was also a son of Gustav. And Gustav also had another young son, Charles which I soon will mention... John's son Sigismund was supposed to take over the country after the John III. But his uncle Charles did not accept that. He felt like it was his turn to become King, so over the span of a few years he made a smear campaign of Sigismund and said all kinds of bad things about him... And then finally a day he started an uprising with a few nobles on his side to remove Sigismund as the King of Sweden. The uprising was succesful and Charles became the new King of Sweden, and now became known as Charles the 9th (or Charles IX, aka "Duke Charles"). To lock out Sigismund and any other of his sons or polish noblemen from the Swedish throne, did Charles make a law that only a protestant could become King of Sweden. And being a Catholic was now a crime in Sweden that could give you the death penelty. So as you see, Swedens hard stance on religious issues had very little to do with religion. And very much to do with the Swedish Kings power struggles and need to secure their own power and stealing money.
@@nattygsbord Sweden's history is hardly unknown, if you aren't referring to pre-christian times. Eric the Victorious is the first king who is historically proven to exist, but it's quite clear Sweden had kings before him. The nobility in Sweden was always quite weak, the peasants were never serfs like on the continent and part of diet. Saying that "Sweden fell under Danish rule" during the Kalmar union is incorrect. The Kalmar union was a personal union of kings. Each kingdom was ruled according to their own laws and Danes were for example was forbidden from holding office in Sweden. On several occasions the king was deposed.
@@Jauhl1 *"Sweden's history is hardly unknown, if you aren't referring to pre-christian times."* It is. Unless you count Adam of Bremen and Olof Rudbeck and such people as credible sources... personally I think that is just all fiction, fantasy and mythology crap. So we do not know much about Sweden's first Kings. So talking about the founding of Sweden is a bit like talking about Romulus and Rhea founding Rome. Believe it if you want. Personally I don't think we know much when Sweden was founded. And that is why I say we know very little about Swedens early history. *"The nobility in Sweden was always quite weak"* Relativly weak compared to other countries. But none the less have they been the ones that have steered much of the development of this country up until the 1800s. Only possibly the Kings have held more power. The country was poor so the nobility was therefore also poor. The many forrests provided excellent terrain for defensive warfare of peasants while nobility cavalry would be vulnerable in such terrain. So it was therefore had to establish a strong nobility. And the many genocides on the nobility would then help keeping them in check for the most part up until 1721.. when they took over the country and mismanaged it for a hundred years. *"Saying that "Sweden fell under Danish rule" during the Kalmar union is incorrect."* The centre of power in this union was Denmark. The Kings and Queens was from Denmark. It is therefore not wrong to say that Sweden was ruled from Denmark. *"and Danes were for example was forbidden from holding office in Sweden."* Not according to all Swedes favorite historian - Herman Lindqvist. This was the main reason why the Swedish nobility was upset with the Danish rule. The Danish King tried to solve the problem of Swedish nobles revolting against Denmark with making a genocide on them. Unfortunatly for him it did not solve the problem of anti-Danish revolts. And a Danish military conquest of Sweden was a too difficult project even when Denmark was a Great Power. Swedens forrests provided excellent defensive terrain and places for ambushes. So a long lasting military occupation of Sweden was never a realistic option. If I was Christian I would have thrown the Swedish nobles a bone so they would shut the f*ck up and not revolt. And then I would try to Danishfy the country in a slow piecemeal fashion. You can not eat an elephant in just one bite. You have to eat it up piece by piece. *"On several occasions the king was deposed."* That proves nothing. I see that as miscontent within the ruling class rather than as a nationalist uprising. The peasants in Finland often rose up against the opression by the nobles, then it had everything to do with mistreatment, unfairness, and economic exploitation. But none of these revolts had any nationalist liberation as a cause. They were just concerned with how the nobles treated them. And in the same way was the Swedish nobles dissapointed in the Danish King, and their revolts had very little to do with romantic visions of saving Sweden.
@@nattygsbord That Denmark as the biggest nation of the union was dominant is different from being under Danish rule. Danish rule would mean a Danish administration and law applying over Sweden's. Much like Sigismund was king of Poland and Sweden, so was Denmark and Sweden separate realms in the personal union. The limits of Royal authority and foreign influence is a continuous contested issue with wars were the union king's have to promise to rule according to Swedish laws and respect the national privy councils authority. sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmarunionen
Thanks to our Patreons! If you would like to join them, check out our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory
Thanks to Bartosz Muscialowicz, there are Polish subtitles for this one as well.
Just a quick correction:
There are two mistakes in our video. One of them is a minor spoiler to the video so maybe read this after you’ve watched the video.
Firstly, Poland-Lithuania was in a real union at the time we’re discussing here. Not a personal union.
Secondly, One of Sigismund’s commanders took Stockholm, not he himself.
*"Secondly, One of Sigismund’s commanders took Stockholm, not he himself."* --- Yup. To be more precise Stockholm was captured by Samuel Łaski who commanded a unit of... 12 men.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Strangely enough I think that was the last time in history Stockholm was conquered.
@@deteon1418 Good for you guys. May it stay that way.
A couple of more notes and critiques from finnish historiography perspective, I understand this side of the events might be underrepresented in the bibliography available. Björneborg (typoed in the map) is not really a relevant town at this point, alas the city privilegios were granted to the town by duke John, but as a power base it is completly irrelevant for most of the Finnish history. Åbo was far more important, and it was there where Klaus Fleming the commander of the royal army resided. He was the most prominent royalist in Sweden. Without him (ruthlessly) controlling the Österland (Finland), Chalres would have had no trouble of deposing Sigismund. Fleming's ruthlesness did lead to a peasant rebellion. The finnish peasantry had been heavily war-taxed during the Russian conlifct going on and off for half a century, but they finally lost their temper when Fleming insisted on upkeeping soldiers during peace time to have an army at hand to balance the power against Charles. Charles had a small part agitating the peasantry for "his cause", but more modern historiography tends to favor the theory of the peasantry rebelling because of long lasting issues on how the local nobility treated and taxed them mostly ignorning the rule of law.
You mixed up the Polish Infantry and Polish cavalry symbols as well
I really enjoyed this video. In school we learned all about Western Europe, but we missed all the fascinating history of the rest of Europe. Please tell more stories about Sweden and Poland and the Baltic region.
Western!?
@@GajuszJuliusCyvilis yes, I grew up in the States. Our history classes focused on the colonizers of the Americas - France, the UK, Spain and Portugal. Except for the World Wars, we never studied in depth about any other countries. For example, I remember having to name all the kings of France and kings and queens of England for a test. We never even discussed rulers of countries like Sweden or Poland. I learned about them on my own, out of my own passion for history, but I want to know more. Unfortunately for me, I don’t understand any of the Baltic languages. Channels like this one are so important to people like me.
Norman Davies "God’s Playground. A History of Poland"
@@GajuszJuliusCyvilis thank you. I will look for it.
After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660 by Robert Frost - a great follow up book to this video. Robert Frost is overall perfect if you want to learn the history of that region. That is his specialty and obsession.
I'm a swede, and learned a little bit about this in school, but don't remember much. It's really nice that you're delving more into both Swedish and Polish history, which a lot of other history channels don't mention much.
As an American it was the fact that my paternal grandfather was a Polish soldier and later finding Sabaton, that got me intrested in Polish and Swedish history.
No! Its a horrible story! The "Swedish Deluge" killed 25% of Poland's population for no other purpose than to feed the vanity of Charles X. I think we heard quite enough about Swedish-Polish history already and its about time that Sandrhoman started talking about kinder and humbler people. Like Pizarro or Cromwell or some such.
@@martinan22 I had no idea about how many were killed in this war. But not talking about it won't inform anyone about it. It's much better to bring it up. Maybe Sandrhoman should make a video about these casualties.
@@Astillion Yea yea, I know. And a lot of the deaths came from Pole against Pole. That is what that kind of non centralized state is like. But Charles X campaign became so horrible that it was unite or die for the Poles, the brutality of the Swedish invasion became a nation founding moment for the Poles. Check out the story of the Black Madonna if you like.
@@martinan22 I will look that up. Thanks for the recommendation.
The topics you cover recently are just fantastic. Just as your research. Great work, mate!
I'm so glad to see more videos on the wars of Poland-Lithuania/Sweden/Russia (besides world wars/cold war)
Very underrepresented in western history books/videos
I love to see the history of the Commonwealth being popularised! Excellent video (my one problem with it was already addressed and corrected by SandRhoman in a comment).
BTW The very election of Sigismund in 1587 was exceptionally tense and disputed, much of which was related to the complex internal Polish-Lithuanian politics, which would take too long to explain. Two armed camps formed 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 initially 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).
A very good but still short break down of the politics can be found on the BBC podcast "in our time". It features three historians, among them Robert I Frost who we quoted frequently in our video. They discuss the Polish-Lithuanians politcal system and how it was (later on) exploited by foreign powers. It's very much worth a watch!
@@SandRhomanHistory The podcast is indeed great! I especially liked the ending remarks by Prof. Frost. In my comment, I meant less how the whole system worked (although that too) and more why was the situation in 1587 so tense in particular. But to explain that I would likely write whole paragraphs about the career of Jan Zamoyski, the life, trial and execution of the (in)famous troublemaker Samuel Zborowski, and the whole personal, familiar and political drama around it.
@@SandRhomanHistory I love In Our Time, but I thought the recent episode on the Commonwealth could've been better.
I hoped we would see more on the PL-Commonwealth. I'm a very happy history nerd right now!
The funny thing is that any time I had an opportunity to talk about the Polish-Swedish Union and Sigismund with people from Sweden they always portray him as some cartoony evil bloodthirsty Catholic.
I always mention the Battle of Stegeborg as an obvious example of how Sigismund cared for Sweden and Swedish people. In fact, during his whole reign, he was always accused of caring for Sweden, a kingdom that rejected him, much more than for Commonwealth.
maybe accusations of caring for sweden are just polish propaganda against sigismund though?
@@gabrielvanhauten4169 maybe so, but he tried to sell polish crown to Habsburgs (he was stopped by the chancellor Jan Zamoyski who defended the polish throne from Habsburgs for him earlier), he also denied to renounce the title of the king of Sweden and led the Commonwealth to a series of wars against Sweden in hope to regain the throne, which were exhausting and pointless for the Commonwealth.
Polish historians have ambivalent judgment of him, he wasn't a great king, but the Commonwealth was at the height of it's power during his reign and considering how awful some of the later kings were, his flawes and opportunities he wasted can be forgiven.
@@gabrielvanhauten4169 at least he was accused of trying to sell the Polish crown. If there's anti-Sigmund propaganda in Poland it was made by his political opponents during his life.
The upbringing could not have been that fun for him being raised in another country. And he was not any more evil than any other average Swedish King or nobleman of that time. So in a way one can feel sympathy for him.
But on the other hand was he a lame monarch
As a Swede I never thought of him that way. He seemed like a good king. Carl IX on the other hand was mentally unstable, extremely bad tempered and had quite a bloody reign.
Still the best history channel on YT. Thanks mate.
Yet another excellent mini-documentary on this interesting era that is often overshadowed by the ancient and early medieval era. Keep it up!
Fantastic video! 👍👍👍
Greetings from Sweden! 🇸🇪
I feel like there is a real lack of Polish history in English. So I definitely appreciate these videos.
There is a general lack of Central and East European history in the West
Try some books by Adam Zamoyski, Norman Davies and Roger Moorhouse.
And today, Poland and Sweden stand united in their love for...
Sabaton
And disunited in every other aspect
@@sowianskizonierz2693 nah, both Sweden and Poland like vodka
@@PolishGod1234 so do lots of other places
@@sowianskizonierz2693 yes, but it's another thing they have in common
@@PolishGod1234 ok
Great video. Thank you for showing more of Swedish history.
This video was very informative. I had no idea that this ever happened. Thanks for a nice video.
When i saw the "kurwa " on the billboard i spilled the coffee all over the place 🤣😂🤣
Poland and Sweden are often neglected by historians, though they both played important roles in European history. John III Sobieski of Poland rescued Vienna from the Turks in 1683, and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden revived the Protestant cause when it was about to collapse during the 30 Years War.
Same with people forgetting about Khotyn.
@@ChillDudelD first or second?
@@pawekobylinski4634 Both?
@@ChillDudelD Second battle was really cool.
Isn't Sweden that African state in Europe?
Love your work boys. Always insta-click when I get the notification. :)
Glad to hear that.
@@SandRhomanHistory oi shermokshino( polish commenwealtbwar song ) intensified
@@SandRhomanHistory please do on the sikh durrani wars
Wow, this video was really really well done. Everything was very smoothly explained and easy to follow and the graphics were a fantastic aid.
Cool time period that I feel gets less attention than the Thirty Years War or earlier events in Western Europe. Thanks for the summary. It's interesting to see Vasa's attempts to straddle the line between being king of both nations with his choice in pursuit and promises made in negotiations.
Great work! Thanks for your videos.
I'm a Swede, and a soldier and teacher, and I really hope Swedes and Poles will grow closer over time. I know our cultures differ, and our mindsets are not always the same, but I believe we could gain much from making our little corner of this world a good one. I lost many ancestors in the wars against the poles, for good and ill, but for my part I have nothing but love for our southern brothers.
May your days be happy and peaceful, and know that if you ever come visit me in Ångermanland, in my ancestorial home, I'm buying the beer!
Ive have met many Poles and the mindset and culture are fairly similar the only barrier is the language.
@@blablableh724 not really
Just imagine if Poland, Lithuania and Sweden united in the late 16 or early 17th century... That would be most powerful empire in history of European continent! Instead we had series of wars, conflicts and nobility going on personal gain campaigns which has left Commonwealth in crumbles by the end of 17th century. What a shame.
Love the quality of these videos and how interesting they are, keep it up!
Much love From 🇵🇱 to 🇸🇪
But they should give our 🖼 as they promised in Oliwa peace treaty.
@Stupid danish Skål
All love from a native Swede to our brothers the Poles! May we grow closer over time!
Nordics and Polish are brothers.
Truly awesome content!
But I think there is a slight mistep around 2:26: +- "...at that time Poland was in a personal union with Lithuania..".
Polish historiography tends to distinguish period of personal union (pre-1569) and so-called "actual" union (post 1.07.1569). Since we are talking about the latter period, we are in the times of actual union, not just the personal one.
Ps. Also, from the Polish perspective King Sigismund is often seen as a king of a lost chances. Twice he had an opportunity to grant his son a neighbouring kingdom, allowing Vasas to build a potential dynastic union, at the expense of his (son's) conversion, and twice he refused...
As a Swede I've actually never heard of this part of our history in detail, cheers!
As thanks for the knowledge I'll provide some language tips ;P.
You pronounce the Ö perfectly however the "K" in linköping and the Å's were a bit off. Starting with the K sound, it usually sounds like how you pronounced it however sometimes it's a "sh" sound or a "soft K" sound like "Cz" in Czechia. Köping is one of those words. others are Kyla (cold), kyss (kiss), kör (to drive. though choir is spelled the same but pronounced with a hard K).
The other letter "Å" is pronounced like a short "O" sound in English, luckily this does not have any strange changes like the "Ö" has so an "Å" is always the same sound.
Lastly just for fun the Ä should be pronounced like the first "A" sound in Damnation, a sort of long hard A.
(also last but not least, I think you guys dropped an R in "Björneborg" at 4:11 :P)
I pronounce ”ö” exactly like the ”i” in birthday, börthday.
Was just about to mention many of these points... but as a Canadian who worked on Learning Swedish on his own in High School and had a fascination with most all Germanic langauges since then. Glad someone - yourself in this instance, has put everything important down more directly and probably correctly down for other's benefit.
Yeah, it's weird, it's like. If the k is followed by a certain set of vowels, it's pronounced like sh 80-90% of those times.
why? you guys dont learn domestic history enough in schools or?
@@hatsuhioki9361 the wars of our history isn't really seen as important by our government I guess.
Listening to your videos while playing crusader kings 3 couldn't be more perfect.
Ah, you missed a great opportunity in this video! Everytime anyone mentions Hertig Karl (Duke Charles) I think it should be required by law to show his portrait with his insane hairstyle! :) Can't wait until it comes back into fashion!
Thank you for this video, feels nice to hear of my home of Uppland being invaded
One word in Polish to understand entirety of the situation with over half of its nuances
Yeah that single billboard pretty much summed up the tactical and strategic situation from Sigismund's point of view.
@@MarktheRude add morale to that
Very interesting and beautiful illustrations. Thanks from Russia!
For anyone wondering, the name "Sausage campaign" is derived from the victorious supporters of duke Charles capturing the backpacks of their Finnish opponents (who fled after very brief skirmishes). The bags were apparently full of sausages, which makes sense since they are a durable, cheap and nutritious food.
I guess the soldiers were really happy about the loot :D
@@Fankas2000 i know i could use a sausage after a long day's honest work for the protestant cause
There is a similar story from nearly 400 years later in the Soviet-Finnish Winter War
8:38 has a grand meme potential. Jokes aside, beautiful video on interesting and underrated part of history.
I'd like to suggest if you could put a little timestamp on the edge of the screen so we can easily keep track of the events and the time each one happened. I love your videos!
Wow accurate PLC borders in foreign video about history
very rare
to be honest, we had help from Poles. Mainly by Bartosz Musialowicz who helped us producing our last vid on Khotyn. It's quite hard to get these maps right as most maps around the internet are just not correct. Our fast draft were pretty wrong but Bartosz kept insisting that we change them which was difficult but in the end was a good thing ;)
@@SandRhomanHistory I imagine it's hard cuz in every major channel our borders are wrong. Check latest video from " Na bitewnym szlaku " pl channel.
Great subject please kep going 👍
The "kurwa." joke was well delivered, thank you.
youre great keep up the good stuff
Discovered your channel recently so hello to al!
I am enjoying your informative videos, they're really addictive; but I wonder a mysterious part of European history. I would really be thankful if you do a vid on Rosicrucianism. Things like the free masonry, and Illuminati are widely covered by a lot of popular channels. But I can't find much on Rosicrucianism. So maybe it will be a success and will help more people understanding the human kind and their history!
Keep on going on whit the good work. And I hope you enjoy it while doing so!
Fun story :Johan's separate marriage negotiations with Sigismund over Catherine Jagiellon was one of the issues that triggered King Erik to send an army to Finland and capture his brother. Erik tried to send Catherine back to Poland but she refused to leave her new husband. Sigismund was born while the couple were prisoners at Gripsholm castle. They were released when the king got mad starting to kill of important nobles he suspected were trying to kill him, Which led to the nobility rallying behind Johan to depose him. After a number of counterplots to restore Eriks' rule it's said he was killed by poisoned pea soup.
Sweden’s role in shaping Eastern Europe began even a 1000 years before this.
As a man from Södermanland i never knew we the Sörmlanders and Duke were the key players in the fight for liberty from Poland and it made me proud. Thank you
How was it a fight for liberty from Poland? Poles literally refused to give support to Sigismund. He had to borrow the money for his campaign and all Poles in his army were mercenaries.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 i don't mean freedom from the polish people I mean freedom from sigismund people don't matter in politics and war if neither are democracies and I general historically
@@xlaxelnoreen I mean Sigismund wasnt a tyrant or anything, he was literally half swedish, the only reason he was disliked in sweden was because he was Catholic essentially, hes pretty typical of a 17th (well technically it happened in the late late 16th century) monarch
@@lordpolish2727 i know he wasn't a tyrant. I know he was Swedish ish. He as a person was pretty nice for the era. But if we didn't rise up then Sweden would become a part of Poland/the commonwealth and we would lose our independence. And yes we weren't keen on becoming Catholics again
@@xlaxelnoreen I don’t find it likely Sweden would join Poland, the two nations were too different, it from my perspective would be pretty equal of a union that would contend mostly against Russia and Denmark.
OH my god...
KIRHOLM Awaits!
Good effort on the Swedish pronounciation there!
In primary and high school in czech republic. We are only taught the history, which can support our patriotism, so we always gloryfy "our" most famous leaders. I like how you do not glorify any of the sites. Keep doing the great job!
Denmark looks so much better on a map when they had Scania. Copenhagen was much more strategically placed and was basically in the centre of the country.
Nikt w Polsce wtedy nawet nie pomyślał że małżeństwo Katarzyny Jagiellonki z Janem Wazą będzie miało takie tragiczne dla Polski skutki w przyszłości.
If Protestantism wasn’t a thing, Sigismund would’ve ruled the world.
these damn protestants are behind every bad thing that happened in this world.
lol not, his country collapsed from inside after an attempt to install the catholic religion in ortodox regions of Commonwealth
@@impaugjuldivmax Where the fuck did you find this "fact"?
Not really. Sigismund was weak King.
And while Poland was a great power militarily, economically, politically and culturally..
it was also ruled by a very weak King. And the nobles blocked necessary reforms that could make the state apparatus more effiecent.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 ohh, another d@mb polish patriot. read some books before visiting internet.
Union of Brest 1595 - decision of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to break relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church and to enter into communion with catholics under the authority of the Pope of Rome.
This ended up with a strong ortodox rebellion, defeat of polish King, his capture and potop kurwa
Imagine sweden and the commonwealth united! They would‘ve ruled the 17th century
it wasn't realistic to unite like Poland and Lithuania did but they could (and should have) cooperated, whether under the same ruler or not.
the republic of Poland-Lithunia and Sweden. sounds too long though. Maybe the Swedish-Polish Empire?
@@MyPrideFlag It had probably hindered Russia's expansion for a long time to come. Perhaps Russia would never have had a Baltic port city.
@@niklasmolen4753 Offcorse, Poland almost conquer Russia in 1612.
Well it certainly would have meant that Russia wouldn't have become the local power.
If Sweden and the commonwealth united then the Baltic sea would be called Baltic lake
Not caping Charles was his biggest mistake....
2:20 Since the Union of Lublin in 1569 the Polish-Lithuanian Union wasn't just a personal union (separate states, with separate goverments, linked only by the person of the monarch), but it was a real union, with one crown and one parliament. Compare with the union of England and Scotland in 1707.
It is difficult to to understand why such a big empire collapsed so easily, without explaining an extraordinary political system that was in the Polish-Bielorusian Republic ( Rzeczpospolita ). In Poland they use the name Rzeczpospolita which means Respublica.
1.This was a noblmen democracy were since 1572 king was elected by noblemen , he was more like a president , and had no much power.
2.The real power was rested with the parlament ( Sejm ) , were a noblemen representatives had a LIBERUM VETO power. If one noblemen representative during the Sejm proceedings said VETO than all laws enacted during the entire Sejm proceedings had to be aborted, and the Sejm was dissolved, and every body had to go home.
3. The foreign powers were bribing noblemen to use the LIBERUM VETO power in 1700's to break most Sejms. So entire political system of the Republic was being paralyzed and the Republic became defenseless.
4. Noblemen were refusing any taxation to raise army, so the king almost never had a standing army, while the local magnates had they own private armies.
5. If noblemen felt being oppressed by the king they had legal right to enact a confederacy to fight against the king and it did happen many times.
6. In spite of all of this, right to the very last partition of the Republic the noblemen overwhelmingly thought that the Republic has the best political system in the world.
7. As a result, since 1717 Russia had a permanent military garrisons in Poland , and Russians said that this was for the purpose to safeguard Polish democracy. They just wanted to prevent any political reforms in Poland. And when in 1791 the Republic made an effort to radically change her political system by enacting the first in Europe constitution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_3_May_1791 , Russia and Prussia did second Partition of the Republic.
Sounds like the "Age of liberty" in Sweden. The power of the King was strongly limited. It was also a nobleman democracy. Foreign powers also bribed the political parties. Foreign powers played the game to keep this system in place so that Sweden would remain weak and dysfunctional. The Swedish speaking nobility in Finland began lusting for Finland to break off from the country and become independent or fall under Russian rule instead.
The Spanish empire had some of the same problems too. Only Castile paid taxes, which is of course absurd when you see that not just Castile but also all of Spain needed military protection, and so did Italy, North Africa, South America, Belgium, the Netherlands and other places of the empire. The nobles in the rest of the empire refused to pay their fair share. And the King backed down from confrontation, the wars was not so costly to begin with and American gold could pay for them.
But then more and more wars was started. And war debts grew. And the gold and silver was not enough to cover the costs. So King was forced to raise taxes to avoid bankruptcy. Holland hated taxes and religious opression so they declared independence. And a war in Holland sucked more money. Taxes had to increase even more. But the nobility in Italy and Spain refused to pay anything unless they got more independence from Spain.
So Spain fought wars on foreign countries, Holland and Portugal declared independence. The economic problems were huge and parts of the Kingdom became more and more independent from Spain in exchange for the right to Spain to tax those lands. And finally was the Spanish monarchy as weak as it was before the empire was created.
Also France, Denmark and the Austro-Hungrian empire was left dysfunctional because of their strong nobility.
Denmarks nobility refused to pay taxes or to let their farmers join the army. So Denmark could therefore not build a professional standing army. And that made them instead rely on mercenaries which in the long run gave them an army less effective than that of other countries which had a standing army (like Spain and Sweden). So the country got badly beaten in some wars with its neighbours. And once the country had learned its lesson and forced the nobility to loosen their grip, then it was already too late. Half of the country's provinces had already been lost to foreign powers.
One country would however have serfdom and remain succesful - and that was Russia.
A country where the nobility was so strong that it would be more fair to call people slaves instead of serfs. The country would however remain much backwards in the 1800s and 1900s.
A Great Polish historical novel of the period " Deluge" .
Can you please make a video about the polish muscovite war or the Livonian war?
Please a video of the battle of Lepanto and the siege of Castelnouvo........
Sigismund moved the capital from Krakow to Warszawa becuase it is located more closely to Sweden
wait a god damn minute.
if I had a nickle for every time Finland was involved in a conflict named sausage, I'd have two nickles. It's not a lot but it's strange that it happened twice.
first sausage war: 6:21
second sausage war: 10th December 1938, battle of Varolampi pond aka "the sausage war"
Also you can bet your ass I'll be referring to the battle of Vamrolampi pont as "the second Sausage war" from here on out lmfao
Hi, very good material. It's maybe interersting point to make, that Sigismund the 3rd, from the stance of his individual qualities (or rather the lack of those) as well as his extreme (for the liberal Commonwealth's standards) conservativeness is being perceived as the largest tragedy in Polish history and the biggest single factor to the downfall of the country (which he initiated). Very much in the contrast to his predecesor, Stefan Batory, he lived long and unsucessful life, hated by all and destroying everything he touched, well example of so called reverse - Midas :)
I wonder what qualifies as "conservativeness" here?
Him being religious? Well, one could equally blame the religious minorities for putting their religious convictions over the public good of the Commonwealth. It's a double edged sword.
Him trying to have more power than the Diet? Well, back in the 16-17th centuries it was not a sign of "conservatism" - quite to the contrary, "enlightened despots" were a wet dream of the "progressives" of the time.
Or maybe his patronage of the arts and sciences was somehow "conservative"?
@@jurisprudens Quite literally being the great protagonist of the counter reformation and the endorser of the jesuit order. And it doesn't matter either the jesuits were or were not involved in doing science at that point. Everyone supporting counter reformation is by default a conservative. Keep in mind that while someone might see being conservative as a bad thing, for the conservatives it is not so, similar to being a communist and so on. All the other things are not important, as a king might have been either liberal or conservative AND try to take the power from the diet and also, a king might have been either liberal or conservative and still be effective or not. In case of Sigismund the 3rd he was conservative waste of human flesh, but he would be (most likely) as disastrous as liberal ruler.
@@ukaszzyka6279 Well, I doubt Jesuits could be described as “conservative”. Just like the Counter-Reformation. It was not about “preserving the status quo” - Counter-Reformation worked largely through reforming the church governance (e.g., getting rid of the privileges of monasteries, strengthening the bishops, uniformity in education and liturgy). Just like the Protestants cannot be seen as liberal: they literally wanted to “restore” what they thought was “the original Christianity”, without “subsequent innovations”.
Poland is Poland. I am Poland. Florida is Poland. Czechia is Poland. Estonia is Poland. Germany is Poland. Vanuatu is Poland.
Kindom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuanie were at that time (that is, sice 1569) in PARLIAMENTARY UNION, not PERSONAL UNION.
see the correction (comment section) that was posted along with this video!
Gång på gång, sjung Karolus sång.
😌😌
They can keep their Red Castle, and their Iron Chair too!
*THE KING IN THE NORTH!*
SandRhoman fixes his map challenge (Impossible)
The king in the north!
7:20 polish classic latin written on a board lol
Why do I hear Sabaton music?
Mount and blade: With fire and sword
The beginning of the end for the Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealth which disappeared from the map in 1795, was electing Sigismund Vasa as King of Poland. Because of his obstinate Catholicism he even lost Moscow taken by the Poles and Lithuanians in 1610 because he refused a request by the Russian Boyars to allow his son to sit of the Russian Throne on the condition of him converting to the Orthodox fault.
The Vasas were a stubborn lot. Compromise wasn't really their thing.
To me, the comparison to Stannis suits Zygmunt more than to the King in the North.
"The Swedish throne is mine by rights. All those who deny that are my foes."
But the title of the video didn't quite call him that but rather that he tried to be that in addition to being the king of Poland. Also, he failed. (Oops, spoilers.)
@@seneca983 Sweden was a hereditary monarchy. He was merely elected King of Poland. Sigismund was born and raised as the crown prince of Sweden, naturally he greatly resented the usurpation.
jesus christ thats the most cringy shit i've read this day
Sigismund was a fool who did not follow up his victory at Stegeborg with harsher policy. Charles IX would never make such a mistake. It spelled the end of any chance at a revival of Catholocism in Sweden and the beginning of so much destruction.
"Fun" fact, Gustav Baner was a member of the high Swedish nobility that was executed by Charles IX in "the Bloodbath of Linköping" for having sided with Sigismund and then refusing to admit it was treason to support his lawful king. However, his son, Johan Baner, became the most talented and ruthless general of the son of Charles IX, Gustavus Adolphus.
So let that be a lesson kids, mercy is punished and harshness is rewarded.
In the next video you could bring the siege of Gaeta of 1435
I lost it at the Kurwa sign
xD
You should make a video about the battle of Cochin (1504) where 150 portuguese and 10k cochinese won against 80k soldiers of Calecut and it´s allies without any casualties.
haha 8:38 someone got carried away :) Don't get me wrong but that does not sound like a viable tactical plan ;)
1. Polish Lithuanian Union prof. Robert Frost th-cam.com/video/MTrbR4stbhY/w-d-xo.html
2. Commonwealth of Diverse Cultures (Poland-Lithuania) prof. Norman Davis th-cam.com/video/Hl7t19eXy88/w-d-xo.html
3. The Noblemen's Democracy of Poland and Lithuania th-cam.com/video/TW_hcZCY6QM/w-d-xo.html
4. Gaude Mater Polonia , the first Polish anthem th-cam.com/video/Wv8LriCtwxE/w-d-xo.html
classic example of why you need to destroy your enemies sigismund lost because of that
If you do any more videos on Sweden, Å is more correctly pronounced as an english O than an english A. Nailed Södermanland perfectly
how did the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth went from a major European power to being partitioned by Austria Prussia and Russia?
The country had a nobility (a bunch of rich and powerful men) who cared more about making themselves richer and powerful than they cared about the well-being of their own country. The Kings of Poland therefore not that powerful. Power was more spread out into many hands, while in some other countries it was more centralized into the hands of the King.
So a rich and powerful country like Poland could perhaps only use 5-10% of its real potential.
But a country like Sweden that was poor and had a small population, had a weak nobility and a stronger King could make use of 100% of the potential of Sweden. This made it possible for Sweden to raise big armies and punch above its own weight, and even knocking out Great powers like Russia, Poland and Germany on the battlefield.
The wars with Sweden did also ruin Poland. The struggle Sweden and Poland did not just end with wars between the two countries. It also led to wars with other countries.
Russia was in a civil war in the early 1600s. And both Sweden and Poland invaded Russia because they wanted to put a new King in power. Poland wanted a Polish King over Russia. While Sweden did want to put a Swedish King over Russia.
So because of this did Poland get involved in wars with Russia.
In 1650s did the Swedish army once again invade Poland. And the country suffered terrible destruction. 20% of Polands population died. Also other countries joined in and attacked Poland. The Swedish troops failed to end the war with a Swedish victory, and the speedy blitzkrieg turned into a slow Vietnam war with guerilla fighting against the Swedish occupation army. Then did Denmark declare war on Sweden, and the Swedish King took most of his army in Poland and sent it to invade Denmark.
But the damage to Poland had already been done. The country have been much weakened by this war. Not until nazi-Germany and Soviet union took over the country would such a large proportion of the population die. And for that reason is Sweden named in the Polish national anthem.
So after the many wars had Sweden been a bit exhausted when Russia declared war on it. The Swedish military historian Lars-Ericson Wolke says this could have been one of the reasons why it became Russia and not Sweden that won the power struggle of becoming the strongest power in Northern Europe. Personally I do disagree with him.
He also says that Poland also fell victim to Russian agression for the same reason.
The country was left weak and in a bad shape over 100 years after the Deluge, so it could not offer much resistence when it was carved up by Austria, Prussia and Russia.
@@nattygsbord the next videos if there are more will show you how, Jan II Waza's reign was a dissaster in an almost apocalyptic way, the cossacks rebelled, they faced invasion from 3 foreign powers and some of its powerful magnates were traitors, that The Commonwealth survived The Deluge is almost a miracle.
@@g.sergiusfidenas6650
Sweden also nearly suffered the same fate as Poland. Frederick the Great, Denmark and Russia had made a secret plan to carve up the country, because its nobility had mismanaged the country so much that in the next best oppurtunity with a little interior conflicts - which there were many in the 1700s - would Sweden be divided up by its neigbours. And they would probably have succeded had the plan ever been acted upon.
Instead did Russia and Prussia carve up Poland in 1772, while the Swedish King restored the absolutist monarchy rule. And thereby was Sweden allowed to live for a few decades more.
But the century of stagnation caused by mismanagement by the ruling class (the nobility) did in the end doom Sweden in 1809 when it lost Finland and soon also German Pomerania.
@@nattygsbord Ironically, when Turks start planing to atack Vienna in 1683, King of Poland John 3rd Sobieski actually wanted to destroy rising Prussia together with Sweden, that swift change of foreign policy of PLC from centre of Ukraine to North/Baltic Sea was named as 'Baltic policy'. Poland according to his plans would have taken East Prussia and Sweden would have Pomerania/Brandeburg. But after political games, he choose to help Austrians.
look up "the deluge" it took place in the 1650's
Am I sensing a Linköping bloodbath video on the way?
Impressive pronunciation of "Södermanland"!
just imagine how grate polish-swedish-lithuanian commonwealth could have been
Then if the Kalmar Union would have also been reinstated we could have had Polish-Swedish-Danish-Norwegian-Lithuanian commonwealth.
Sigismunds uncles beeing knowned for killing each other. Who would stay there?
love the animations on horse legs
Why did you misspell cities like Björneborg and Jönköping on the map?
10:36 isn't that lady cold wearing just that?
Never heard of this war. Probably because the Thirty Years War is more important to a variety of states / nations than this conflict. Was is of European interest at the time or was it ignored by the west? I mean Sweden become an important player later on but the Polish-Lith Commonwealth not really. Only at vienna right?
I recommend listeing to the BBC podacast "in our time" to get a good overview how the west discussed Polish-Lithuanian Affairs.
It was important in hindsight since it led up to Sweden getting involved in the 30-year war.
Gustavus Adolphus feared Poland more than the German emperor. Poland was Swedens enemy no.1
and the war in Germany, as large as it might be was seen as a side show to the war in Poland. The Polish King had claims to the Swedish throne, and an attempt to take over Sweden could only end in the Swedish King getting beheaded if it succeded, so the power struggle with Poland was an existential one for the Swedish monarchy.
The most important reason for joining the war in Germany was because the Holy Roman emperor was an ally of Poland. And if he got too strong and gained control over northern Germany and started to build a fleet, then Sweden would have a powerful enemy with so much recources that it would be impossible to defeat him. Especially when he was allied with Poland.
Also Catholic Spain was allied with Poland. And the plans to use Spanish ships to transport Polish troops to invade Sweden was something that the Swedish King Gustavus feared a lot.
Oh yeah, what video about Poland without famous "kurwa"?
Ah yes, The Deluge. Fun times indeed.
Burger King vs the Winged Hussars
"Dominium maris Baltici"
The river Stångån is redundant, it should be either the Stångån or the river Stång :)
Relax... This is not a swedish video. Slappna av, du kommer inte att skita på dig för det. Du fattar väl varför det sägs på det sättet eller kämpar du med grundskolekompetensen på Komvux??? Jag skriver detta på svenska för att bespara dig skammen...
Make a comment. Get the engagement up.
ANDY RICHTER THE SWEDISH GERMAN
I now the 1500s breast plates were bullet proof but was armor for your limbs bullet proof? please answer.
Using ‘havoc’ as a verb is archaic. It is only used as a noun in modern English.
How was Sweden rules before this time period? Was it an independent kingdom since the viking age?
Swedens past is unknown. Much of the documented history of the middle ages was probably lost forver when the Royal castle three crowns burned down in 1697.
It is believed that Eric the Victorious was Swedens first King when he took the throne in 970AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_the_Victorious
Later on would he be follwed by a bunch over other Kings and Finland was settled around 1000-1100 AD. It was a weak state with much nobles that held most of the power. Civil wars happened because some nobles lusted for more power.
And the country fell under Danish rule with the Kalmar Union.
Denmark was richer and more densly populated than Sweden and modern ideas from Europe had a closer reach to Denmark than to backwards Sweden, so it became natural for the Danish-Swedish-Norwegian King to have his seat in Denmark and not in Sweden.
That made the Swedish nobles feel like the Danish Kings took no interest in Sweden and that they constantly favored Denmark at Swedens expense. And when the Danish King tried to centralize the rule of the Kingdom and take away Swedens independence it did cause much anger within the Swedish nobility. And when Danish noblemen did know the Danish King better and had his trust, then they were much more likely to get the top jobs of ruling over Swedish provinces.
And that angered the Swedish nobility so much that war with Denmark was started. But then Christian II of Denmark settled peace with Sweden. He came to Sweden to Stockholm to celebrate that he had become King, and all former enemies was invited and forgiven he said. So they had a meal inside a castle. And almost the entire Swedish nobility was there.
But then suddenly the doors were locked and guards arrested all the nobles. And the entire nobility was led outdoors and had their heads cut off one by one...
This event is known as "Stockholm's bloodbath" because so many people died that day that the streets were covered in blood from hundreds of people that the Danish had killed.
One Swedish nobleman never trusted the Danish King so never came to his party. That was Gustav Eriksson Vasa.
His father was one of those noblemen that Christian had killed.
Gustav realized that also his life was in danger so he tried to flee up into northern Sweden where the Danes would have it difficult to find him. And he managed to get some Swedish miners on his side in an uprising against the Danes. And more people joined the uprising when they heard the news of what the Danish King had done. And soon it became impossible for the Danes to keep control over the country. Only a few castles could still be defended, while the countryside was impossible to control. Gustav Vasa now became the first King of the modern day Sweden.
He only had one problem. And that was that he could not conquer the key cities of Sweden because he lacked artillery and mercenary troops. So he talked with the German Hanseatic league, who happily helped him making their enemy the Danish King weaker.
Gustav Vasa could now finally get all of Sweden under his control. The war was won.
But the economy was bad. He now had huge debts to the Hansa. And if he could not pay them, then his Kingdoms days would soon be numbered.
So what did the Swedish King do?
- He plundered the churches. Gustav was a greedy person who lacked morals and he had no religious conviction.
He made his country protestant only so he could get control over the church and being able to steal all silver, church bells and other valuable stuff the church had. And now he could pay off his debts to the Hansa.
The problem was now solved.
He was a totalitarian dictator who ruled the country with an ironfist. And taking control over the church was all about increasing his own power. He now had control over the news that was spread in churches and used it for his own propaganda.
For the first time did Sweden now get a system where the King did inherit his throne from his father after he died.
His oldest son Eric the 14th became the 2nd King of Sweden when Gustav died. And after him did John III take over after his brother had become mentally insane, John was also a son of Gustav. And Gustav also had another young son, Charles which I soon will mention...
John's son Sigismund was supposed to take over the country after the John III. But his uncle Charles did not accept that. He felt like it was his turn to become King, so over the span of a few years he made a smear campaign of Sigismund and said all kinds of bad things about him...
And then finally a day he started an uprising with a few nobles on his side to remove Sigismund as the King of Sweden.
The uprising was succesful and Charles became the new King of Sweden, and now became known as Charles the 9th (or Charles IX, aka "Duke Charles").
To lock out Sigismund and any other of his sons or polish noblemen from the Swedish throne, did Charles make a law that only a protestant could become King of Sweden. And being a Catholic was now a crime in Sweden that could give you the death penelty.
So as you see, Swedens hard stance on religious issues had very little to do with religion. And very much to do with the Swedish Kings power struggles and need to secure their own power and stealing money.
No for a while it was in the Kalmar-Union with Denmark and Norway, it is probably why they didn't want any more unions since they left that union.
@@nattygsbord Sweden's history is hardly unknown, if you aren't referring to pre-christian times. Eric the Victorious is the first king who is historically proven to exist, but it's quite clear Sweden had kings before him.
The nobility in Sweden was always quite weak, the peasants were never serfs like on the continent and part of diet.
Saying that "Sweden fell under Danish rule" during the Kalmar union is incorrect. The Kalmar union was a personal union of kings. Each kingdom was ruled according to their own laws and Danes were for example was forbidden from holding office in Sweden. On several occasions the king was deposed.
@@Jauhl1
*"Sweden's history is hardly unknown, if you aren't referring to pre-christian times."*
It is. Unless you count Adam of Bremen and Olof Rudbeck and such people as credible sources...
personally I think that is just all fiction, fantasy and mythology crap. So we do not know much about Sweden's first Kings.
So talking about the founding of Sweden is a bit like talking about Romulus and Rhea founding Rome. Believe it if you want. Personally I don't think we know much when Sweden was founded. And that is why I say we know very little about Swedens early history.
*"The nobility in Sweden was always quite weak"*
Relativly weak compared to other countries. But none the less have they been the ones that have steered much of the development of this country up until the 1800s. Only possibly the Kings have held more power.
The country was poor so the nobility was therefore also poor. The many forrests provided excellent terrain for defensive warfare of peasants while nobility cavalry would be vulnerable in such terrain. So it was therefore had to establish a strong nobility.
And the many genocides on the nobility would then help keeping them in check for the most part up until 1721.. when they took over the country and mismanaged it for a hundred years.
*"Saying that "Sweden fell under Danish rule" during the Kalmar union is incorrect."*
The centre of power in this union was Denmark. The Kings and Queens was from Denmark. It is therefore not wrong to say that Sweden was ruled from Denmark.
*"and Danes were for example was forbidden from holding office in Sweden."*
Not according to all Swedes favorite historian - Herman Lindqvist. This was the main reason why the Swedish nobility was upset with the Danish rule.
The Danish King tried to solve the problem of Swedish nobles revolting against Denmark with making a genocide on them. Unfortunatly for him it did not solve the problem of anti-Danish revolts. And a Danish military conquest of Sweden was a too difficult project even when Denmark was a Great Power.
Swedens forrests provided excellent defensive terrain and places for ambushes. So a long lasting military occupation of Sweden was never a realistic option.
If I was Christian I would have thrown the Swedish nobles a bone so they would shut the f*ck up and not revolt. And then I would try to Danishfy the country in a slow piecemeal fashion. You can not eat an elephant in just one bite. You have to eat it up piece by piece.
*"On several occasions the king was deposed."*
That proves nothing. I see that as miscontent within the ruling class rather than as a nationalist uprising.
The peasants in Finland often rose up against the opression by the nobles, then it had everything to do with mistreatment, unfairness, and economic exploitation. But none of these revolts had any nationalist liberation as a cause. They were just concerned with how the nobles treated them.
And in the same way was the Swedish nobles dissapointed in the Danish King, and their revolts had very little to do with romantic visions of saving Sweden.
@@nattygsbord That Denmark as the biggest nation of the union was dominant is different from being under Danish rule.
Danish rule would mean a Danish administration and law applying over Sweden's. Much like Sigismund was king of Poland and Sweden, so was Denmark and Sweden separate realms in the personal union.
The limits of Royal authority and foreign influence is a continuous contested issue with wars were the union king's have to promise to rule according to Swedish laws and respect the national privy councils authority. sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmarunionen
Cant wait to see something about Commonwealth-Danzig conflict.
dajesz :)
Was there really a conflict of interest between Sweden and Poland? It all just seems so utterly pointless?