Posted on 07/13/2007 7:40:37 AM PDT by WesternCulture
The women took all the life boats!
“The women took all the life boats!”
- The only thing they truly appreciate about us is our money.
I remember a stand up comedian here in Sweden who always addressed his audience with the words:
“- Ladies and Credit Cards!”
Some men have a gift of viewing things from a female perspective without necessarily being gay..
The scene where Kirk loses an eye to a hawk is cool, also.
The Vikings tended to have a short-term perspective. Raiders always do.
Later in the cycle their attacks were more in the line of attempted conquest by kings or great lords.
But in the early days they were essentially smash and grab artists.
“The Vikings tended to have a short-term perspective. Raiders always do.
Later in the cycle their attacks were more in the line of attempted conquest by kings or great lords.
But in the early days they were essentially smash and grab artists.”
- This is correct.
They were also very clearsighted and eager to learn from other cultures, especially in the field of military techniques.
After they were beaten by the French, who used superior, heavily armoured cavalry, they quickly adopted these methods of warfare. In the beginning of Scandinavia’s medieval period, Swedes and Danes fought each other with the most modern military techniques and strategies around in Europe of those days, even though Scandinavia in general was underdeveloped in most areas.
“What made the original voyages rewarding was the rape and pillage they anticipated.’
The buffaloes could not be reached for comment.
Yup. Sweden especially punched well above it weight for hundreds of years.
Until Russia got too big for them to handle.
“Yup. Sweden especially punched well above it weight for hundreds of years.
Until Russia got too big for them to handle.”
- Or, maybe you could say Russia by and by became more effective and organized and less beackwards.
When we lost Finland during the Napoleon Wars, we were without allies apart from England that was isolated due to Napoleon’s blockade which Sweden defied and furthermore, we suffered from being lead by one of the most pathetic and incompetent rulers of Sweden ever, Gustav IV Adolf (not to be confused with Gustavus Adolphus).
Whether you mean “big” literally or not, Sweden managed to beat around 37 000 Russians with 8 140 men at Narva 1700 (Russia has always been bigger). One aspect was the leadership of Charles XII (one of the few Swedish monarchs who’ve ever gained a great reputation abroad). When many other military commaders of those days shouted “GO!” behind the backs of their soldiers, Charles XII took the lead and said “COME!”.
Charles XII was a great soldier, but a poor strategist and a terrible statesman. Gustavus Adolphus he was not.
I believe somebody at the time said something along the line that by beating them repeatedly he was training the Russians how to beat him.
“Charles XII was a great soldier, but a poor strategist and a terrible statesman. Gustavus Adolphus he was not.”
- I guess most experts would agree.
“I believe somebody at the time said something along the line that by beating them repeatedly he was training the Russians how to beat him.”
- I haven’t heard that one before, but it makes sense.
Something that ought to be remembered when comparing what Charles XII did and what Gustavus Adolphus was up to is that Russia was very much of ‘terra incognita’ to Charles XII and to everyone else from Western Europe at that time, while central Europe wasn’t exactly anything resembling a vast, pitch black abyss to Gustavus Adolphus and his men (many of them came from central Europe themselves).
All the same, I agree Charles XII doesn’t seem like a great strategic. He was good at tactics and leadership, but maybe he should have tried harder to reach a peace agreement with Russia after the victory at Narva.
I sincerely appreciate talking to someone who has some knowledge of our country’s history.
Best of regards.
Amateurs talk tactics, professional talk logistics.
Logistically, invading Russia in 1709 was a very bad idea. Napoleon and Hitler had massive difficulties logistically, even with much more advanced technology.
Strategically, his decision to turn his back on Russia and allow Peter to rebound while he flailed around in Poland for 10 years was also a serious mistake. You should always finish off your (at least potentially) more dangerous enemies before turning to secondary foes.
“Amateurs talk tactics, professional talk logistics.”
- Guess this is true in many ways.
“Strategically, his decision to turn his back on Russia and allow Peter to rebound while he flailed around in Poland for 10 years was also a serious mistake. You should always finish off your (at least potentially) more dangerous enemies before turning to secondary foes.”
- But was Russia really the most dangerous enemy? If Poland would have been allowed to recover after only having been partially defeated so to say, it’s likely they would’ve supported a new Danish attack on Skåne (the southernmost part of today’s Sweden, which Denmark lost to Sweden along with some other regions in the middle of the 17th century). The 1676 battle of Lund was still fresh in mind.
Such an invasion cold have led to disastrous consequences if the majority of the Swedish troops were tied up in Russia.
Charles XII’s idea could have been that as long as the Polish forces we’re hindered from supporting a major Russian OR Danish onslaught attack and furthermore that if he completely managed to crush Poland (which he did), he could deal with either Denmark or Russia.
Whether it was intelligent or not to spend as much time as he did in Poland, it’s possible that he should have attacked Denmark instead of Russia at the time when the ‘total’ defeat of Poland was a fait accompli?
When I was in Oslo, we visited the Hjemkomst (I think that was the name), a viking ship that came from Minnesota (I think!!!), all the way down to Oslo. It had about two feet of space from the sides of the ship to the ocean. I cannot even imagine the courage it took to make it all that way.
They don’t make men like that anymore.
Those ships were incredible.
The ribs were actually fastened to the planking by fiber rope. The long ship actually writhed up and down like a snake in the ocean.
I wonder what ship it was. The two best preserved ones are the Gokstadt Ship and the Oseberg Ship. I think the Oseberg ship is the more beautiful of the two - the lines on it are breathtaking. It looks “alive”.
I read somewhere that the dragon head on a Viking Ship was not put there until the ship was out of port and replaced at sea. The Vkings believed in spirits called Landvetter(spelling?) which were sort of guardians of the land. They believed the fierce dragon head whould scare away the Landvetter of the places they were rading, but didn’t want it to scare away the guardain spirits of their own land.
I guess Norway is a beautiful place with the fjords and mountains and snow. The closest to it here is probably Washington State north into the Alaska panhandle. Never was in Norway, but was in Alaska - a real beautiful place.
“After they were beaten by the French..”
AWK!!!!!!!
The FRENCH beat the VIKINGS???!!!!!
Then why did they pay off Hrolf the Ganger (Rollo) with Normandy to protect them from other Vikings?
(Back then they were probably Franks anyway - Germans not FRENCH!!! Hate the FRENCH!!! I hates them precious!!!!)
So, I’m familiar with Columbus Day here in America , but when do we commemorate Leif Erickson’s earlier arival, discovery and non-desecration?
There is a Leif Erickson’s Day - I think its October 12 or 11th.
But Leif Ericsson wasn’t the first European we know of to see the “New World”.
The man who did was Bjarni Herjolfsson and his crew who were blown off course on a trip to Greenland. Unfortunately they didn’t land - they needed to get back to Greenland. But he told Ericsson what he had seen and set the stage.
So actually we should have a Bjarni Herjolfsson’s Day instead of a Leif Ericsson’s Day.
Thanks. We have an above-average statue to Erickson on the Commonwealth Ave. mall in Boston and it might be a good site for such a commemoration on Oct.11th, as you indicate.
I went to Norway with my mom a year before she died. She wanted me to meet her family in Oslo because she knew she didn’t have long to live.
The Hjemkomst is actually a recent reproduction of a viking ship, not the real thing. It was build in Minnesota, I believe, and sailed through the canal systems until it got to the Atlantic. (I bought a tee shirt...) I saw one old ship at the folksmuseum there. (I’m a descendant of Roald Amundsen so I’m interested in these things.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.