As a descendant of Wallenstein Duke of Friedland I am glad to find a resource of any of this history to preserve the memory of all those involved on both sides.
Actually who won that battle? Imperial forces or Swedes? And were pistoliers standard cavalry or preferred cavalry of the time? the documentary shown only pistoliers (or cuirassiers but boths were the same). Halle museum reseracher said 'carbine'. Were carabinier tactics of that time also involving point blank shootings in the same manner as pistoliers? and did any pistoliers REALLY charge pike squares with their swords as shown in the documentary? any who did wasn't particularly smart especially if he did a frontal assault a square rather than flanks.
So what were the big myths busted here? That early modern armies weren't made up of nationals? That hasn't been questioned in modern times. That there were few Swedes in the Blue Brigade? Big surprise, since most Swedish infantrymen were in the aptly named Swedish Brigade. That the battle was a tactical draw or merely a small victory (the Imperial army did withdraw)? Professor Harrison even states at the end that today only right-wing populists believe it was a glorious victory. This could have been a great documentary about what could be learned about the people who fought this war and how battlefield archaeology can provide new answers, but it would seem that the producer failed to understand what was actually interesting and relevant about this and ended up presenting it as something it isn't.
I was enjoying this until the end where they tried to take a shit on patriots who are proud of their countrt's history even if there were some dark chapters. We have the same self-fladulation in the UK with Churchill being denounced because he wasn't a woke progressive tree hugger.
Keep it up and you will gobbled up by the international billionaire class, as we are in the USA. You don't need to become right-wing to preserve your nationality.
Interestingly the Imperial forces took slightly less casualties than the Swedes did. It may have been an impressive victory for sweden, but the cost was incredibly high. 6 thousand killed, or wounded, and Gustavus himself among the dead. Wallenstein however, Gustavus' Equal, was not killed during this battle, Though he would ultimately be assassinated not too long afterwards, Because despite his military genius and capabilities, the emperor distrusted him.
Swedish television is a communist and an anti-Swedish television. In the Swedish army, it was basically only Swedes, only a small part were Finns if you are to call them that because Finland was Sweden at the time. For example, at the battle of Breitenfeld, the Swedish army consisted of 24,000 men, while the Saxons had 18,000 men. The reason that the Swedish army was so feared and strong was that they took farmers and other people from the same county or those who had farms close to each other. You got a trust and a morale that was very important and so it was psychological. Now I do not know where these were broadcast if it was anti-Swedish svt or anti-Swedish TV 4 ... they never deny themselves. I do not deny that there were Germans with us because we were allies with them. but in the Swedish army it was only Swedes. This is a lie like no other. I myself am very interested in Sweden's history and have then researched a lot in this subject and read on and also got hold of scrolls.
As for the Swedes, they were really played by the French; this war was rooted in national ambitions of an unwisely placed cleric who also got into the role of effectively "prime minister" of France... Cardinal Richelieu, who was really the mastermind of the demise of Christendom, and effectively a rather traitorous priest- one reason why the Catholic Church doesn't allow its clerics to hold political office: it turned out to be a profoundly stupid idea to split their alliegance. What the Pope of the days just after Richelieu's departure from this life said is telling, a rough translation of his eulagy of that cleric was thus "If there is a God, he's in a lot of trouble; if God doesn't exist, he's had one successful career...", in other words, he played by his misconduct a massive assistance to those, as they were seen in those days, "village idiots" (atheists), and correctly seen as fools, a massive assist by completely destroying Christendom by his double "jobs" of "prime minister" in France and also basically being a priest at least and at most a bishop, the usual other job of a cardinal is a bishop. I know the likelihood of a disagreement with the Swedes in those days especially would be rather high but that'd show them something, if they retain their independence from the evil one via retaining their senses and not losing control of their emotions.
That's the impression I've got from my limited reading on Cardinal Richelieu. Rather a crafty schemer. Would you believe I first started reading on him because of a Monty Python sketch?
every 4th citizen of germany died in this war so the other side didn't have an advantage and could press their demands as well as they wanted, like in most wars.
Depends on what calender you used. Acording to the Julian calender used by the Swedish at the time the battle took place on the 6 November. But according to the callender used by the Catholic League, the gregorian calendar, the battle took place on the 16 November. Hence Swedish history Writing traditionally places the battle on 6 November 1632 and not 16 November. So before you play besserwisser you might want to read up on what you are complaining about before you actually do any complaining! ;)
Tobias, it was part of the religious war. The more modern Gregorian Calendar (introduced 1583 by the Catholic church) was seen by the Protestants as "Popish devilry". Hence they retained the old Julian Calendar which due to innaccuracy (its 11 minutes longer than a real year) had the time 10 days too early since the times when Julius Caesar introduced it. The Gregorian Calendar was finally accepted in Sweden 1753, as the last European country. So there's some chaos with the dates in the 17th -18th century in Europe.
@@no8592 Hell no The religious aspect was only really important in the first 10 years of the conflict. Why do you think Germany reunited not even 3 years later to fight united against French and Swedish invaders?
As a descendant of Wallenstein Duke of Friedland I am glad to find a resource of any of this history to preserve the memory of all those involved on both sides.
Actually who won that battle?
Imperial forces or Swedes?
And were pistoliers standard cavalry or preferred cavalry of the time? the documentary shown only pistoliers (or cuirassiers but boths were the same). Halle museum reseracher said 'carbine'. Were carabinier tactics of that time also involving point blank shootings in the same manner as pistoliers? and did any pistoliers REALLY charge pike squares with their swords as shown in the documentary? any who did wasn't particularly smart especially if he did a frontal assault a square rather than flanks.
@@DiscothecaImperialis ruclips.net/video/Dd3lT5Jiev8/видео.html
This guy did a really thorough video on the battle 👍
So what were the big myths busted here? That early modern armies weren't made up of nationals? That hasn't been questioned in modern times. That there were few Swedes in the Blue Brigade? Big surprise, since most Swedish infantrymen were in the aptly named Swedish Brigade. That the battle was a tactical draw or merely a small victory (the Imperial army did withdraw)? Professor Harrison even states at the end that today only right-wing populists believe it was a glorious victory. This could have been a great documentary about what could be learned about the people who fought this war and how battlefield archaeology can provide new answers, but it would seem that the producer failed to understand what was actually interesting and relevant about this and ended up presenting it as something it isn't.
I was enjoying this until the end where they tried to take a shit on patriots who are proud of their countrt's history even if there were some dark chapters. We have the same self-fladulation in the UK with Churchill being denounced because he wasn't a woke progressive tree hugger.
Keep it up and you will gobbled up by the international billionaire class, as we are in the USA. You don't need to become right-wing to preserve your nationality.
Interestingly the Imperial forces took slightly less casualties than the Swedes did. It may have been an impressive victory for sweden, but the cost was incredibly high. 6 thousand killed, or wounded, and Gustavus himself among the dead.
Wallenstein however, Gustavus' Equal, was not killed during this battle, Though he would ultimately be assassinated not too long afterwards, Because despite his military genius and capabilities, the emperor distrusted him.
Swedish television is a communist and an anti-Swedish television. In the Swedish army, it was basically only Swedes, only a small part were Finns if you are to call them that because Finland was Sweden at the time. For example, at the battle of Breitenfeld, the Swedish army consisted of 24,000 men, while the Saxons had 18,000 men. The reason that the Swedish army was so feared and strong was that they took farmers and other people from the same county or those who had farms close to each other. You got a trust and a morale that was very important and so it was psychological. Now I do not know where these were broadcast if it was anti-Swedish svt or anti-Swedish TV 4 ... they never deny themselves. I do not deny that there were Germans with us because we were allies with them. but in the Swedish army it was only Swedes. This is a lie like no other. I myself am very interested in Sweden's history and have then researched a lot in this subject and read on and also got hold of scrolls.
As for the Swedes, they were really played by the French; this war was rooted in national ambitions of an unwisely placed cleric who also got into the role of effectively "prime minister" of France... Cardinal Richelieu, who was really the mastermind of the demise of Christendom, and effectively a rather traitorous priest- one reason why the Catholic Church doesn't allow its clerics to hold political office: it turned out to be a profoundly stupid idea to split their alliegance.
What the Pope of the days just after Richelieu's departure from this life said is telling, a rough translation of his eulagy of that cleric was thus "If there is a God, he's in a lot of trouble; if God doesn't exist, he's had one successful career...", in other words, he played by his misconduct a massive assistance to those, as they were seen in those days, "village idiots" (atheists), and correctly seen as fools, a massive assist by completely destroying Christendom by his double "jobs" of "prime minister" in France and also basically being a priest at least and at most a bishop, the usual other job of a cardinal is a bishop.
I know the likelihood of a disagreement with the Swedes in those days especially would be rather high but that'd show them something, if they retain their independence from the evil one via retaining their senses and not losing control of their emotions.
That's the impression I've got from my limited reading on Cardinal Richelieu. Rather a crafty schemer. Would you believe I first started reading on him because of a Monty Python sketch?
Every 4th citizen of Germany died in this war for nothing 🙏
sad but true..
every 4th citizen of germany died in this war so the other side didn't have an advantage and could press their demands as well as they wanted, like in most wars.
Tänk om några av våra förfäder var där? Då skall man verkligen visa respekt
Those skeletons are human and therefore ancestors
Anyone from my school here ?
So many salty neo-nazis in the comment section who can't realize that nationalism isn't always violence, war and intolerance.
It was the 16th november not 6th
Depends on what calender you used. Acording to the Julian calender used by the Swedish at the time the battle took place on the 6 November. But according to the callender used by the Catholic League, the gregorian calendar, the battle took place on the 16 November. Hence Swedish history Writing traditionally places the battle on 6 November 1632 and not 16 November. So before you play besserwisser you might want to read up on what you are complaining about before you actually do any complaining! ;)
Tobias, it was part of the religious war. The more modern Gregorian Calendar (introduced 1583 by the Catholic church) was seen by the Protestants as "Popish devilry". Hence they retained the old Julian Calendar which due to innaccuracy (its 11 minutes longer than a real year) had the time 10 days too early since the times when Julius Caesar introduced it. The Gregorian Calendar was finally accepted in Sweden 1753, as the last European country. So there's some chaos with the dates in the 17th -18th century in Europe.
Countless Finns died because of other people's wars for nothing but artifacts in Stockholm's museums.
Awww man
I wished i lived there i can find a musket
Hail Albrecht von Wallenstein :)
katholik and kriminal
Please don't narrate the stories. It's boring
Thank the Rothshilds for that mass slaughter.
You might have the wrong Battle of Lutzen in mind.
@@emw1994 No im pretty sure i dont. Those guys stick arround since Ptolemaios the first or even before... (Just another Name... )
@@lilwater7358 Lutzen was about the right of consciousness for the believers. It was a battle between Luthers and Catholics.
@@no8592
Hell no
The religious aspect was only really important in the first 10 years of the conflict.
Why do you think Germany reunited not even 3 years later to fight united against French and Swedish invaders?