On this Day in History (1720): The Treaty of Stockholm

The Town of Anklam, drawn in 1758

Dear Readers,

On this day in the 1720s, Prussia made peace with Sweden. The Prussian portion of the treaty of Stockholm, which ended this portion of the larger Great Northern War, gave territory to Prussia, and badly needed cash to Sweden, which was still struggling against Russia and Denmark. King Charles XII of Sweden died at the Siege of Fredricksten in 1718, and the new Swedish King, Frederick I, and government sought to rapidly end the war. As a Hessian prince, Frederick I was only too willing to negotiate with Prussia and Hanover, seeking to draw them out of the war via territorial concessions, and use them as leverage against Russian occupation of large portions of Swedish territory in Estonia and Livonia.  

In reality, only the area south of the red line was given to Prussia

Stettin (Szczecin), a large and important city on the river Oder, was given over to Prussia. Prussia also gained Pomeranian territory south of the river Peene. Frederick William I, the King of Prussia, had significantly expanded for very little expense. Smaller towns, such as Damm, Gollnow and Anklam were also ceded to the Prussians. This area would be contested by Sweden again in the course of the Seven Years War, but remained in Prussian hands. 

A plan of the city of Stettin around 1720

For their part, the Swedes gained 2000 Riksdaler for the loss of these territories. This cash was desperately needed by the Swedish government, which had been at war for approximately twenty years. Unfortunately for the Swedish, the removal of Prussia (as well as Hanover and Denmark by July 1720) from their coalition of enemies did little to influence Russia.[1] Swedish power was decisively broken at the Treaty of Nystad in the following year. 

The Berlin Gate at Stettin, erected in the
era of Frederick William I

Three hundred years ago today was a surprisingly important moment in the history of central and eastern Europe. It helped to confirm what was already apparent, that Sweden, which for a generation had dominated the Baltic world, was beginning to give way to Russian power. It was not apparent to observers at the time, however, that Prussia was consolidating its power in ways which would have profound consequences for the history of Europe over the next three hundred years.

(And yes, I realize that as a result of the change in calendars in the 1750s, the "real" anniversary for this event is February 1st.)

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Consider checking out our exclusive content on Patreon. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading, 

Alex Burns

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Robert I. Frost, The Northern Wars, 296.  

Book Review: Sweden in the Seventeenth Century

Dear Reader,

Interested in Swedish history, but don't speak Swedish? Want a look into how a relatively backwater country made a comet-like rise to great power status? Then Paul Lockhart's Sweden in the Seventeenth Century is the book for you.  This book examines the Stormaktid, or "great power period" of Swedish history. Lockhart is traditionally a Danish historian, and as his CV will tell you, has written numerous books on the geo-political role of Denmark in the early modern world. In more recent years, he has written a couple of wonderful books on the American War of Independence.

However, in this work, he takes a break from Danish history, (although his Danish viewpoint occasionally reasserts itself), and examines the role of Denmark's neighbor, Sweden. Lockhart eloquently argues that Sweden asserted its position as a great power by use of military force, and that Sweden lagged behind other European powers in terms of, "literary, artistic, scholarly, or commercial sophistication." The book shows that the Swedish state was build around the use of military force, specifically, the use of limited resources to conduct lengthy wars.

The book is more of a survey than a monograph, covering a roughly 120 (Lockhart begins in the 16th century and ends in the 18th) years of history in 177 pages. Lockhart gives time to Swedish military organization and reform, administrative reforms, and the lives of the men and women who made up the Swedish state in this period. In addition, Lockhart shows a great command of the relevant historiography of Sweden in both the English and Swedish languages, and as a result, this book will be very useful for younger scholars, and as a textbook for upper level undergraduate courses on the early modern world.

All in all: 5 Stars. I highly recommend that anyone interested in this period, or Swedish history as a whole, purchase this book.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Battle of Helsingborg, 28th February, 1710

Magnus Stenbock vid Helsingborg by Gustaf Cederstroem

Dear Reader,

Today, we are going to take a moment to remember a significant event in the Great Northern War. As I stated in the post on this Kabinettskriege era war, the Great Northern War is divided into 3 large phases: 1700 to 1709, 1709-1718, and 1718-1722. Today, we are going to look at the Battle of Helsingborg, which occurred on February 28th 1710, according to the Swedish calendar.

This battle was the first major field battle in this war since the Battle of Poltava in 1709. In the Battle of Poltava, the Swedish army was totally defeated by a restructured Russian army under Peter I of Russia. I would recommend everyone read Swedish historian Peter Englund's book, The Battle Which Shook Europe, as he is both a great historian, and a great writer.

This battle occurred not between Sweden and Russia, but between Sweden and Denmark. The Danes had been invaded and knocked out of the war very early on, but with the defeat of Karl XII of Sweden at Poltava, they broke their treaty and resumed the attack. In October of 1709, they reoccupied Helsingborg and other cities in the region. They desperately wanted to reclaim Skåne, the southern portion of Sweden, which they had lost to the Swedes in the 17th century. You may know this area of Sweden, as it is the setting of the famous, "Wallander" series by Swedish author Henning Mankell. (Ystad is just off the map to the right.)  Magnus Stenbock, the leader of the Swedish forces in the king Karll XII's absence, realized that he could not defeat the Danes with the small number of soldiers he had (around 1,500 to the Danes 14,000) and withdrew to raise more forces.

The Attack at Helsingborg

By February, Stenbock had raised enough troops to stand a chance against the Danes. This is one of the battles of the Kabinettskriege period where the number of soldiers on each side was almost exactly equal, around 14,000 men each. The one difference here, is that the Swedish had slightly more cavalry, while the Danes had more infantry. While some military historians might immediately assume that this was to the advantage of the Swedes, (after all, Hannibal used his mounted arm to great effect,) it is equally fair to say that infantry is useful as well- see the Battle of Mollwitz, 1740.

Initial Deployment

Stenbock prepared to attack the Danish forces around Helsingborg, which was one of the larger cities in Skåne. The Danish commander, Jorgen Rantzau, expected the Swedes to attack from the northwest, along the Angelsholms road, but Stenbock, using a heavy fog as cover, shifted north and attacked along the Kulla road. Rantzau, seeing that his left flank was exposed, quickly shifted his army and reinforced this trouble spot.

Battle is joined

The Swedes advanced to the attack, and the cavalry on the Swedish left immediately engaged the Danes. The Karoliner possessed some of the finest cavalry in the world, and as a result, quickly got the better of their Danish opponents.

Danish Collapse

The Swedes also attacked with their infantry in the center, and finally their right wing cavalry. The Danish put up a good fight, better than the Saxons at Fraustadt, but their cavalry was unable to best the Swedes, leading to a collapse on the Danish right, which eventually panicked and routed the Danish army. The Danish lost 1,500 killed,  3,500 wounded, and 2,677 captured, or just over 50% losses. The Swedes on the other hand, lost 897 killed, and 2,098 wounded, or around 20% losses. The unusually large Danish loss (by Kabinettskriege standards) can be attributed to the high ration of Swedish cavalry, which effectively pursued the Danes.

Magnus Stenbock i Mälmo, by Gustaf Cederstroem

This battle revitalized Swedish belief in their cause, and Stenbock would go on to win another victory at Gadebusch in Germany. This would prolong the war, dragging it out to the bitter end in 1722, when having been horribly defeated by Russia, Sweden surrendered. However, when looked at in another sense, Helsingborg gave us the Sweden we have today. As recently as 1658, Skåne had been under the control of Denmark, and if Stenbock had lost at Helsingborg, Denmark would have likely received Skåne in the peace settlement of the Great Northern War. However, because of this victory, Skåne remained part of Sweden, up to the present day.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Sweden in the Kabinettskriege Era

Bringing home the body of Karl XII-Gustaf Cederström

Dear Reader,

In the modern mind, Sweden is viewed as a sort of Scandinavian socialist paradise. The Swedes have given us great writers, like Henning Mankell (Wallander), and great actors, such as Max von Seydow. However, during the Kabinettskriege era, Sweden was known for something else: its empire. During this start period, the Swedes founded an overseas colony, New Sweden, in modern day Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. While the colony was taken over by the Dutch in 1655, small traces of Swedish culture still remain in the area. In addition, the Swedes possessed overseas colonies in Africa between 1650 and 1663. Interested in a timeline of the Kabinettskriege era? Click here. 

However, the Swedes never really possessed a large overseas empire, most of their imperial holdings were in Europe. At the height of Swedish power, the empire included  much of the North German Baltic sea coast, as well as portions of the current Baltic states, such as Latvia and Estonia, the whole of Finland, and a significant part of Norway.

The Swedish Empire (Sweden is Tan, Swedish conquests are in Orange)

While the Swedes were on the rise in the early Kabinettskriege era, by 1721, they had lost most of their overseas possessions in the Stora Nordiska Kriget: The Great Northern War.  Despite an excellent military, the Swedes had been defeated by an alliance of Russia, Denmark, Poland, and Prussia. What is surprising is not that they were defeated, but that they managed to hold out for twenty one years.

They were able to survive for so long as a result of one of the most controversial figures in Swedish history, Karl XII of Sweden, and his Karoliner. The Karoliner were some of the most effective soldiers of the Kabinettskriege era. The Swedish Karoliner used incredibly effective Gå-På (or "Head-On") tactics. These tactics meant that the soldiers would hold their fire until point-blank range, which caused massive causalities to the enemy. After a devastating point-blank volley, the Karoliner would charge fearlessly into close combat, and their panicked enemies would usually flee.

In modern times, many Swedes are atheists, but in the Kabinettskriege era, the Swedish army was held together by a strong belief in the Christian God. The Swedish in this period were Lutheran, and a mix of faith, and Gå-På tactics kept this small, but highly effective, army fighting against impossible odds.

However, this divine protection did not, contrary to Swedish belief, stop musket balls. At the battle of Poltava in 1709, the Swedes were defeated and Karl XII fled to the Ottoman Empire. Refusing to make peace, Karl XII continued the war beyond any hope of Swedish victory. He was eventually killed in Norway, while attempting to besiege a fortress. His death, and the tremendous losses absorbed by Sweden during this war, crushed the Swedish Empire. In addition, this defeat paved the way for the Russians to move into central Europe, with consequences leading up to the present day.

With that knowledge, let us return to the original painting which began this post.

This painting, by Swedish artist Gustaf Cederström, shows the Karoliner bringing home the body of Karl XII, during the so-called, "Karolinian death-march." A Swedish hunter, his son, and their dog, make way for these soldiers. On the hunters back, an enormous bird of prey hangs dead. This death of this majestic bird is intended to mirror the death of the great Swedish king. This epic painting shows the despair of Swedes at the end of the Great Northern War. 

After the death of Karl XII, Sweden's empire never fully recovered. The Swedish empire passed to his sister, Ulrika Eleonora, and her husband, Friedrich I of Hesse-Kassel. While the Swedes were able to defeat the Russians in the war of 1788, and take Norway in 1814, the Sweden's glory days were over. However, now, the Swedish have created a state which is the envy of other Europeans, and an economy which shows signs of strength. 

If we have any Swedish readers, what do you think of Karl XII? Was he responible for the loss of the Swedish Empire? What do you think about Sweden's history in the Kabinettskriege era?

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns 

Militia in the Kabinettskriege period

Afghan Militia in modern Afghanistan 

Dear Reader,


Today, we will look at the use of militia, and other populist forces throughout the Kabinettskriege period. My American readers may be familiar with the role of militia, "minute-men," and other irregular forces in the American War of Independence. These men, and sometimes women, fought the British throughout the American colonies, in smaller engagements, all the way to the large battles, such as Guildford Courthouse and Saratoga.

Militia at the Battle of Guildford Courthouse

Militia in the American War of Independence
A cursory look at the militia forces give a clear picture, which is difficult to argue with. In essence: the militia were bad, often horrible soldiers. At Guildford Courthouse, the British overran two line of militia before even reaching the Continental army in the third line. These troops were panicky, prone to flee at the first sign of a British bayonet charge. As a result, the American commanders ordered their militia to fire two shots and then flee, a prudent use of soldiers who were likely to flee anyway. Towards the end of the war, American commanders learned to deploy their militia in front of their regular battle line, as a sort of speed bump to slow  and weaken the oncoming British. In this role, the militia proved quiet effective. While unable to compete with regular soldiers, the militia effectively drained the strength of the regular forces opposing them.

Off the battlefield, militia assisted the Continental Army in the so-called Kleine Krieg: the endless series of little skirmishes which made up the vast majority of this war. The militia proved effective in these type of skirmishes, as they could use the ambush tactics which they knew very well. They sometimes possessed hunting rifles, which they often used to target British officers. At the Battle of Bemis Height's Colonel Daniel Morgan ordered his riflemen to deliberately target General Simon Fraser from hidden positions. In the Kabinettskriege context, this seemed more like murder than war. In fact, Frederick II of Prussia reprimanded two of his Jägers for targeting enemy officers with their rifles. While the Americans eventually obtained their independence as a result of French help, the militias assisted in keeping the contest running until the French, Dutch, and Spanish could help the colonists.

Swedish Uppbåd (quasi-militiamen) 

Swedish Auxiliary Forces in the Kabinettskriege period
In addition to the usually discussed American militia, Swedish armies often called on the support of militia-type forces in this period. If the lower part of Sweden (Skåne, or Scania in English) was invaded, the peasants often turned up in numbers to fight, as they had a tradition of freedom not unlike the American militia.  At the siege of Malmö or the battle of Landskrona during the Scanian War, or the battle of Helsingborg in the Great Northern War, Swedish peasants joined the ranks of the army, and often went into battle with little or no training. Although in the Great Northern War, these soldiers were hastily armed with muskets, their original weapon was spiked club. While the Swedish soldiers fought well, much better than American militia in similar circumstances, they still lacked the trained skill of the Swedish Karoliner. 

Whether in Sweden, North America, or elsewhere, the appearance of large militia groups meant that one side had popular support. Even if it did not mean popular support across the board, the presence of militia meant that one army had the support of a vocal minority. Countries with militia proved difficult to invade, as the militia troops would harry the invading army, and sometimes, as at the battle of Bennington in the American War of Independence, destroy detachments of invaders through tricks and disguising themselves as friendly soldiers.

Modern Lessons: 

After Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the American army is starting to appreciate the predicament of the British in the American War of Independence. It is next to impossible to achieve victory if neither the invading army's home population, or the population being invaded supports the war. The presence of militia and other paramilitary forces make victory hard to achieve. In the modern War in Afghanistan, American soldiers defeated local militia groups time and again in open conflict. However, these continuing conflicts sap the strength of the American military, and quickly eroded the American population's willingness to see the war continue.

While Britain lost the American colonies, and America lost in Vietnam, the American's in Iraq and Afganistan have had more success. The answer may lie with the American's dedication to training and handing over the fight to Iraqi and Afghani security forces, comparable to British-leaning loyalists in the American Revolution. The key to success against militia is to obtain militias of your own; in order to end the "foreign" occupation in the minds of the occupied populace and the populace supporting the invading military.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns