Mod suggestion: The Great Northern War

[Hunter]

I think that the Great northern war would fit quite good in M&B. The problems would be the sieges and probably the battles since they were quite huge...

"In October the city of Narva in Estonia was besieged by an Russian force of 30,000 – 35,000 men."

I dont know much about modding so I cant do it myself. you can find info at: http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/slkrig_eng17b.htm

 

[zwaps]

Thats a dubious site. "Sweden had the best army in Europe". While this is not only doubtful, the use of "omg best army" in this context would lead me to distrust this page.
I hope you doublecheck your info.

But yeah, the more mods M&B has, the better it gets.

 

[Harlequin_]

sweden had the best army in europe?
damn right it did !!

the best soldiers, reputedly anyway.


no, i'm not swedish and i'm not biased.

 

[Phaedo]

Under Gustavus Adolphus, the Swedes stomped all over every other army in the Northern Wars. The Swedes did indeed have the best army at that point in history.

 

[Radier]

On November 20 1700, the Swedish force of 11,000 soldiers attacked the Russian army of more then 30,000 Russian soldiers in the battle of Narva. Despite the disadvantage of being outnumbered by the Russians, the Swedes won a splendid victory.

We where the best. Europe was scared of us. Ever heard the german proverb?

"Bet Kindschen, bet. Morgen kommt die Schwede."

 

[DannyT]

which means wot

 

[Radier]

Something like "Quiet children, quiet. The Swedes come tomorrow."

 

[zwaps]

On November 20 1700, the Swedish force of 11,000 soldiers attacked the Russian army of more then 30,000 Russian soldiers in the battle of Narva. Despite the disadvantage of being outnumbered by the Russians, the Swedes won a splendid victory.

We where the best. Europe was scared of us. Ever heard the german proverb?

"Bet Kindschen, bet. Morgen kommt die Schwede."

This is by the way not German.
Again, I highly doubt that the Swedes had any influence whatsoever anywhere except in the Northern Countries. It is hard to judge an army by the outcome of a battle, moreover you can see that Russia was able to field far more soldiers - an this was Russia - mind you.
1700 I would be more interested in Dutch, Spanish, British, French armies. Oh yeah, don't forget the Middle East.
Germany, Denmark and Russia are by God not the top notch enemies at this time. With Germany not even beeing a country and all


For this argument to be used with any historic validity, it needs to be absolutely proven and obvious.
This is not the case and simply sounds biased. Such a little thing makes me doubt the whole source.


While having luck with getting support from the Dutch and Britain (and thus winning the sea battle) the Swedish forces victories were against minor forces at that time - Denmark, Poland, German countries... The only main villain they fought was Russia - and Sweden lost badly - riding into battle outnumbered and getting killed.
11.000 lost Swedes verseus 1500 lost Russians.
Nice ratio there.

Then later Prussia joins the fight as maybe the only significant German force in the area and Sweden gets whipped again.

I think this is pretty clearly not the best army...
They walked over some parts of Europe in rather astounding fashion, but when they reached Russia the dream was pretty much over. While having no mercenaries has its advantages, beeing outnumbered every time simply doesn't work.

If you look at a map of this time, just by the size and population of the countries you can see that compared to Habsburg (Austria), Russia, France etc. Sweden was not superiour if not inferiour.
And they way battles went this time the size of the army counts.

 

[Dynamite_cow]

And if you include Swedes, you gotta include hakkapelitas! They were finns fighting for the Swedish, and were very succesful indeed. And if you make them, they gotta be able to shout "Hakkaa päälle pohjan poika!"

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Sorry zwaps, but the others are right. Sweden did have probably the best land army in Europe. Particularly if you take the limited manpower resources they had to work with. Others may have fielded bigger armies, but man-for-man, the Swedes kicked butt. It is hardly a point of serious debate.

What you can suggest is that the Great Northern War was really the golden boys' "last hurrah". The Sweden that came out of it was not the same Sweden that went in.

But I'm hard pressed to see whom else you'd have in mind. I mean, it was pretty cut-and-dry, certainly up until then.

 

[zwaps]

Once again, I am well aware of Swedens advantages in fielding soldiers that did not fight for money.
However, as the history shows us in this very war, Russia was superior, Habsburg would have been GREATLY superior and I guess the Osmanic Empire would have kicked butt, too. I am not sure about Britain but throw them in for a good measure.

The "best" army does indeed include size of the army. Having the "best" army means I can conquer any country. Sweden was not able to do that and would not have been able to do that with countries listed above.

Sure, Poland positively big, but its army was weak.
Even Prussia, little as it was, had an superior army in terms of size.

Once again, discounting tactics and events, just by how the wars were fought at this time, in big armies and infantry division, it was important to outnumber the enemy.

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Once again, I am well aware of Swedens advantages in fielding soldiers that did not fight for money.
However, as the history shows us in this very war, Russia was superior, Habsburg would have been GREATLY superior and I guess the Osmanic Empire would have kicked butt, too. I am not sure about Britain but throw them in for a good measure.

The "best" army does indeed include size of the army. Having the "best" army means I can conquer any country. Sweden was not able to do that and would not have been able to do that with countries listed above.

Sure, Poland positively big, but its army was weak.
Even Prussia, little as it was, had an superior army in terms of size.

Once again, discounting tactics and events, just by how the wars were fought at this time, in big armies and infantry division, it was important to outnumber the enemy.

zwaps,

It was not a question of non-mercenary armies. It just happened to be blessed with some of the best commanders and tactical talent available in the 17th C.

in the TYW, the Swedes did defeat the Hapsburgs. Nearly completely so. The very same Hapsburgs that handed the French their a*ses Ottomans were on-and-off allies to Sweden, so there was never really a chance to go head-to-head against each other. But don't minimize the others. Poland was no pushover. And Russia & Denmark could punch above their weight.

P.S. - Prussia didn't "have" an army. Prussia was an army that happened to "have" a country.

That said, prior to 1700, Sweden did take Brandenburg-Prussia down a few pegs. Prussia became what Prussia became because its rulers were determined not to be pushed around by the Swedes anymore. They very explicitly took the predatory Swedish army as their model.

Sweden could and did pretty much conquer anything it wanted. What it did not have was the manpower to garrison and hold on to everything it took. The Swedish army was very much like a voracious shark: it had to keep moving in order to keep on feeding. You'll notice that whenever there was a lull or winding up in any of its 17th C. wars, Sweden would just suddenly and unexpectedly declare war on somebody, anybody, for the flimsiest reasons, just to keep its army going.

 

[Bismarck]

The Prussians under Friedrich Wilhelm I crushed the Swedish so what about a mod with Prussia? "The German Empire" would be a fantastic mod. Uhlans, Dragoons, Muskets, Grenadiers, Cuirassiers, Hussars and as a bonus Bismarck. Defend the Empire from French, Russians and Polish, protect Austria-Hungary and get some land to generate money. I wish I could make modells and textures. Would anyone be interested? Perhaps a German?