EU/UN Feudalism, what feudalism under the new EUssrRegime Looks Like. Evolution of the Swedish Constitution, Brino , Brexit. Sweden the 4th Reich and The EUsssr and the 5th Reich.

Benito Mussolini claimed that the modern phase of capitalism is state socialism “turned on its head”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

The Swedish Theory of Love, an everyday story from #Cuckland. #SwedishHypocrisy #SwedishStateMonopolyCronyCapitalism #SwedishEUMilitaryUnification #EUArmyNatoByBackDoor

The Peculiar history of the Swedish State constitutionally and the arrangements made in the Social Contract when the US New Deal and British versions of the same were cast. The Swedes created a form of State monopoly Capitalism somewhat analogous to the Junkers and Prussian arrangements explained by John Catto.

 

This evolution lead with a flirtation described as Socialism or Democratic Socialism. It was in fact a FLirtation with National Socialism/StateMonopoly Capitalism a Flirtation which endures and is also the driving force behind the Eu.

Holy Roman Emperor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Emperor of the
Holy Roman Empire
Imperator Romanorum
IMPERIAL
Holy Roman Empire Arms-double head.svg

Double-headed Reichsadler used by the Habsburg emperors of the early modern period
Charlemagne denier Mayence 812 814.jpg

First to reign
Charlemagne
25 December AD 800 – 28 January AD 814
Details
First monarch Charlemagne (AD 800 formation)
Otto the Great (AD 962 formation)
Last monarch Francis II
Formation 25 December 800 /
2 February 962
Abolition 6 August 1806

The Holy Roman Emperor, officially the Emperor of the Romans (LatinImperator Romanorum), and also the German-Roman Emperor[1] (GermanRömisch-deutscher Kaiserlit. ‘Roman-German emperor’), was the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire (considered by itself and by the Roman Catholic Church to be the successor of the Roman Empire) during the Middle Ages and the early modern period. The title was, almost without interruption, held in conjunction with title of King of Germany (rex teutonicorum) throughout the 12th to 18th centuries.[2]

From an autocracy in Carolingian times (AD 800–924) the title by the 13th century evolved into an elective monarchy, with the emperor chosen by the prince-electors. Various royal houses of Europe, at different times, became de facto hereditary holders of the title, notably the Ottonians (962–1024) and the Salians (1027–1125). Following the late medieval crisis of government, the Habsburgs kept possession of the title without interruption from 1440–1740. The final emperors were from the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, from 1765–1806. The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved by Francis II, after a devastating defeat to Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz.

The emperor was widely perceived to rule by divine right, though he often contradicted or rivaled the pope, most notably during the Investiture controversy. In theory, the emperor was primus inter pares (first among equals) among other Catholic monarchs. In practice, an emperor was only as strong as his army and alliances, including marriage alliances, made him. The Holy Roman Empire never had an empress regnant, though women such as Theophanu and Maria Theresa exerted strong influence. Throughout its history, the position was viewed as a defender of the Roman Catholic faith. Until Maximilian I in 1508, the emperor-elect (imperator electus) was required to be crowned by the pope before assuming the imperial title. Charles V was the last to be crowned by the pope in 1530. Even after the Reformation, the elected emperor always was a Roman Catholic. There were short periods in history when the electoral college was dominated by Protestants, and the electors usually voted in their own political interest.

Military history[edit]

Part of a series on the
History of Sweden
Tabula exactissima Regnorum SUECIAE et NORVEGIAE nec non MARIS UNIVERSI ORIENTALIS, Terrarumq- adjacentium summo studio ab
Timeline
Flag of Sweden.svg Sweden portal

A major reason why Sweden could be so successful in wars with such a scarce number of soldiers was its advanced military tactics. Sweden was able to reform its military tactics continuously throughout the period. Prior to Gustav II Adolf’s reforms, both his father, Charles IX, and his uncle Erik XIV had tried to reform the army but had effectively failed to do so. Charles IX, like most other rulers, had tried to implement the Dutch system[clarification needed] into the army but with limited success. The lack of a strict organisation in the infantry caused the proportion of pikemen to musketeers to be far lower than the preferred ratio of 1 to 1. This, combined with the lack of funds to provide the soldiers with armour, caused the Swedish infantry to be dangerously lightly equipped and unable to deal with cavalry or heavier infantry in open terrain. Charles IX was, however, able to implement the Dutch system for fighting in caracole among the cavalry, with unfortunate results. His partially reformed army suffered a disastrous defeat at Kircholm against a Polish-Lithuanian army led by Jan Karol Chodkiewicz. The Hussaria were the last shock cavalry in Europe still fighting with lances, yet they proved with terrifying effect the superiority of aggressive charging compared to the more defensive caracole used in the rest of Europe. In the end, Charles IX’s revolt against his nephew Sigismund (king of Sweden and Poland, grand duke of Lithuania) and subsequent rise to the throne of Sweden caused a dynastic struggle for the throne of Sweden that would not finally end until the treaty of Oliva in 1660.

Gustav II Adolf inherited the Polish war together with the Kalmar War against Denmark when Charles IX died in 1611. The war against Denmark was a terrible loss that forced Sweden to pay a ransom of 1 million silverdaler to regain Älvsborg (final payment, 1619). The Polish war was interrupted by a series of truces caused by Sweden’s weakness along with the unwillingness of the Polish nobility to fight a war considered only to be in Sigismund III’s personal interest. The costly peace with Denmark and Poland-Lithuania’s inability to mount a seaborne attack on the Swedish mainland gave time for Gustav II Adolf to reform his armies. The continuation of the Polish war in 1625–1629 gave Gustav II Adolf the opportunity to test and further improve his army against the Polish-Lithuanian army with its fearsome cavalry.

By the time of the Swedish Intervention in the Thirty Years’ War in 1630, Gustav II Adolf had transformed the Swedish (Gustavian) army into an army in which the cavalry fought with aggressive shock tactics, closer to the Polish tactics than the Western European. The Caracole and heavy armor were mostly abandoned, and the saber replaced the wheellock pistol as the primary weapon of the cavalry. Horsemen rode knee-by-knee in a tight formation. When in range, they switched to gallop and charged, and at a range of ten yards, shot both their pistols. A standard regiment numbered 250 simultaneous shots that would blast a hole in the enemy ranks. They then continued the charge with sabres (värjor), aiming to break the enemy formation. The infantry was meanwhile employed in a defensive manner, relying on their superior firepower to break enemy attacks. Smaller musketeer detachments (~200 men) were used during the Polish war to support the cavalry against the superior Polish-Lithuanian cavalry. Gustav II Adolf earned the title “father of modern warfare” because of his revolutionary tactics during the Thirty Years’ War, which later inspired other nations and became standard tactics. Gustav II Adolf became the foremost model of many later Swedish kings.

Throughout the Thirty Years’ War, the infantry’s shock ability was continuously improved. The static nature of the infantry that served well against the cavalry-dominated Polish-Lithuanian army was enhanced during the war to produce infantry capable of both providing devastating firepower and executing offensive maneuvers. Initially, at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631), the infantry was almost entirely reliant on their firepower and saw very limited offensive use; but under the leadership of Johan Banér, who took command after the defeat at Nördlingen, the Gustavian brigade system was finally changed into the battalion system recognisable from the War of the Spanish Succession and the Great Nordic War (the depth was lowered from six ranks to three or four when the bayonet was introduced at the end of the 17th century).

Swedish tactics once again greatly diverged from the continental tactics during the second half of the 17th century. The continental tactics increasingly emphasized the firepower of the battalion, while the Swedish (Carolean) tactics almost exclusively relied on the shock factor as the infantry and cavalry charged the enemy. As the bayonet was introduced, the pike was discarded in all armies except the Swedish and Russian by 1700.

In this period, it was said of Charles XII that “he could not retreat, only attack or fall.” The same went for his soldiers. In the Swedish army tactics of that time, retreat was never covered, and they were obliged to attack or fight where they stood. This was a military doctrine that (with the advantage of hindsight) might have proven a bit rash.[citation needed]

The infantry shock attack operated as follows. The two rear ranks of musketeers were ordered to shoot when “you could not miss,” a range of roughly 50 meters, and then to draw their swords before the battalion resumed their attack. The two foremost ranks then discharged at a range of roughly 20 meters before drawing their swords, and the charge began. At this range, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops and was demoralising to them. Directly after the volley, the Swedes charged the enemy ranks with pikesbayonets and sabres. Note that the pikes were used as an offensive weapon: in close combat, they had the advantage over their foes’ weapons thanks to their range. After the bayonet was introduced in the Carolean army (1700–1706), the final volley was delayed until the soldiers were inside bayonet range.

Every infantry battalion had grenadiers attached. They supported the infantry attack by lobbing grenades from the flanks. They also formed units of their own. They were otherwise equipped like infantry.

Thus, in the latter half of the 17th century, the major difference between the Swedish army and those common on the continent was the relative lack of firepower and the use of pikes and sabres. Sweden and Russia were the only countries at the time using pikes. In contemporary Europe, infantry were equipped with a musket, while in the Swedish army, every third man had a pike. The pikemen were normally deployed four men deep with musketeers of equal depth on the sides. The pike was used to repulse cavalry and to break the enemy lines as they charged.

Thirty Years’ War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Thirty Years’ War
Part of the European wars of religion
The Hanging by Jacques Callot.jpg
Les Grandes Misères de la guerre
(The Great Miseries of War) by Jacques Callot, 1632
Date 23 May 1618 – 15 May 1648
(29 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day)
Location
Result Peace of Westphalia

 

  • Devastation and population loss in Europe
Belligerents
Anti-Habsburg states and allies:
Bohemia Bohemian Crown (until 1620)
 Palatinate (until 1632)
 Duchy of Savoy (1618–19)
Transylvania Transylvania (until 1621)[1]
 Dutch Republic (from 1619)
Denmark–Norway Denmark–Norway (1625–29)
 England (1625–30)[note 1]
 Scotland (1625–38)[note 2]
 Hesse-Kassel (from 1629)
Sweden Sweden (from 1630)
 Saxony (1630-1635)[note 3]
 Brandenburg-Prussia (1631-1635)[note 3]
 Brunswick-Lüneburg (from 1634)
 France (from 1635)


Supported by:

Habsburg states and allies:
 Holy Roman Empire

Spain Spanish Empire
Coat of arms of Hungary.svg Hungary[2]
Denmark–Norway Denmark–Norway (1643–45)[note 6]


Supported by:

Commanders and leaders
Strength
Casualties and losses
110,000 Swedes[10]


Dutch Republic 50,000–60,000[11]
Dutch Republic 1,835 ships (1626–34)[12]
Kingdom of France 300,000 (including the years 1648–59, after Westphalia)[10]

118,000 Imperial[10]


Spain 80,000–100,000[11]
Spain 100 warships and 20,000 crew casualties (1638–40)

Total: 8,000,000 dead[13] (~94% were Imperial subjects)[10]

The Thirty Years’ War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. One of the most destructive conflicts in human history,[14] it resulted in eight million fatalities not only from military engagements but also from violence, famine, and plague. Casualties were overwhelmingly and disproportionately inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, most of the rest being battle deaths from various foreign armies.[10] The deadly clashes ravaged Europe; 20 percent of the total population of Germany died during the conflict and there were losses up to 50 percent in a corridor between Pomerania and the Black Forest.[15] In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period of January to May 1945 during World War II; one of its enduring results was 19th-century Pan-Germanism, when it served as an example of the dangers of a divided Germany and became a key justification for the 1871 creation of the German Empire (although the German Empire excluded the German-speaking parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire).[16]

Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years’ War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Swedish Intervention
Part of the Thirty Years War
Gustave Adolphe at Breitenfeld-Johann Walter-f3706497.jpg
Gustav II Adolf leads his army to victory at the Battle of Breitenfeld
Date 1630–1635
Location
Throughout the Holy Roman Empire
Result Decisive Swedish victory

Territorial
changes
Pomerania is annexed by Sweden
Belligerents
Sweden Swedish Empire

Temporary combat support:
 Saxony (1630–1631)[a]
 France (1648)
Hesse-Kassel
Limited or non-combat support:

 Scotland[b]

 Catholic League and allies:
 Holy Roman Empire
 Habsburg Empire
Austria Austria
Bavaria Bavaria
Bohemia Bohemia
 Cologne
Flag of the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg).svg Croatia[c]
 Ellwangen
 Hungary[1]
 Mainz
 Passau
 Saxony (1635–1648)
 Trier
Denmark Denmark–Norway[d]Spain Spanish Empire
Commanders and leaders
Sweden Gustav II Adolf 
Sweden Axel Oxenstierna
Sweden Johan Banér
Sweden Lennart Torstenson
Sweden Gustav Horn
Sweden Carl Gustaf Wrangel
Sweden Bernard of Saxe-Weimar
Sweden Hans von Königsmarck
Sweden Prince Karl GustavSweden Alexander Leslie
Holy Roman Empire Albrecht von Wallenstein
Holy Roman Empire Johann Tserclaes 
Holy Roman Empire Ferdinand II
Holy Roman Empire Ferdinand III
Holy Roman Empire Gottfried Pappenheim  Maximilian I of Bavaria
Strength
70,600:
Landing in Germany:
13,000 men[3][4]

  • 10,000 infantry[3]
  • 3,000 cavalry[3]

Defending Sweden:
24,600 men
Allies and mercenaries:

33,000 men

546,000:
50,000 Imperial
150,000 German
300,000 Spanish
26,000 Danish
20,000 Hungarian and Croatian[5]
Casualties and losses
31,518 killed, wounded and captured[citation needed] 101,094 killed, wounded and captured[citation needed]

The Swedish invasion of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Swedish Intervention in the Thirty Years’ War is a historically accepted division of the Thirty Years’ War. It was a military conflict that took place between 1630 and 1635, during the course of the Thirty Years’ War. It was a major turning point of the war: the Protestant cause, previously on the verge of defeat, won several major victories and changed the direction of the War. The Habsburg-Catholic coalition, previously in the ascendant, was significantly weakened as a result of the gains the Protestant cause made. It is often considered to be an independent conflict by most historians.

After several attempts by the Holy Roman Empire to prevent and contain the spread of Protestantism in Europe, King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden led an invasion of the Holy Roman Empire. Although he was killed in battle at Lützen, southwest of Leipzig, the Swedish armies managed to successfully defeat their Catholic enemies and established Sweden as one of the great powers of Europe for the next 100 years. His leadership of the Protestant powers of Germany and Europe was critical to the establishment of an alternative branch of Christianity recognized in Germany, and ensconced it in some forms of international law and custom. Additionally, it rolled back the gains the Habsburg family had made in re-centralizing political power in the Holy Roman Empire in the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Swedish invasion confirmed the role of Holy Roman Emperor as a ceremonial, de jure position within the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire. The new European great power of Sweden would last for a hundred years before being overwhelmed by numerous enemies in the Great Northern War.

The long-term political consequences of the Protestant victory include the Holy Roman Empire emphasising decentralization of power to local magnates and dynasts. Protestant victory and liberty of religion thereby assured the political and national decentralization of the Empire for several centuries, and made it vulnerable to foreign domination. The religious and political divisions sowed by the conflict blocked centralization as was occurring in FranceEngland and Spain at the time. Political Unification of

Frederick V of the Palatinate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Frederick V, Elector Palatine)

Jump to navigationJump to search

Frederick V
Gerard van Honthorst 006.jpg

Frederick wearing the Crown of Saint Wenceslas, other Bohemian regalia and the collar of the Order of the Garter. On the table is the Cap representing his separate office as Elector Palatine. Painted by Gerrit von Honthorst in 1634.
Elector Palatine
Reign 19 September 1610 – 23 February 1623
Predecessor Frederick IV
Successor Charles I Louis
King of Bohemia (as Frederick I)
Reign 26 August 1619 – 8 November 1620
Coronation 4 November 1619
Predecessor Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor
Successor Ferdinand II
Born 26 August 1596
Deinschwang, near AmbergUpper Palatinate
Died 29 November 1632 (aged 36)
MainzRhineland-Palatinate
Spouse Elizabeth Stuart
Issue
more…
House Palatine Simmern
Father Frederick IV, Elector Palatine
Mother Princess Louise Juliana of Orange-Nassau
Religion Calvinist

Frederick’s coat of arms

Frederick V (German: Friedrich V.; 26 August 1596 – 29 November 1632)[1][2] was the Elector Palatine of the Rhine in the Holy Roman Empire from 1610 to 1623, and reigned as King of Bohemia from 1619 to 1620. He was forced to abdicate both roles, and the brevity of his reign in Bohemia earned him the derisive sobriquet “the Winter King” (CzechZimní král; German: Winterkönig).

Frederick was born at the Jagdschloss Deinschwang (a hunting lodge) near Amberg in the Upper Palatinate. He was the son of Frederick IV and of Louise Juliana of Orange-Nassau, the daughter of William the Silent and Charlotte de Bourbon-Montpensier. An intellectual, a mystic, and a Calvinist, he succeeded his father as Prince-Elector of the Rhenish Palatinate in 1610. He was responsible for the construction of the famous Hortus Palatinus gardens in Heidelberg.

In 1618 the largely Protestant estates of Bohemia rebelled against their Catholic King Ferdinand, triggering the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War. Frederick was asked to assume the crown of Bohemia. He accepted the offer and was crowned on 4 November 1619,[1] as Frederick I (CzechFridrich Falcký; the adjective means “of Oberpfalz” or “of the Upper Palatinate“). The estates chose Frederick since he was the leader of the Protestant Union, a military alliance founded by his father, and hoped for the support of Frederick’s father-in-law, James VI of Scotland and I of England. However, James opposed the takeover of Bohemia from the Habsburgs and Frederick’s allies in the Protestant Union failed to support him militarily by signing the Treaty of Ulm (1620). His brief reign as King of Bohemia ended with his defeat at the Battle of White Mountain on 8 November 1620 – a year and four days after his coronation.

After the battle, the Imperial forces invaded Frederick’s Palatine lands and he had to flee to his uncle Prince Maurice, Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic in 1622. An Imperial edict formally deprived him of the Palatinate in 1623. He lived the rest of his life in exile with his wife and family, mostly at The Hague, and died in Mainz in 1632.

His eldest surviving son Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, returned to power in 1648 with the end of the war. Another son was Prince Rupert of the Rhine, one of the most colourful figures of his time. His daughter Princess Sophia was eventually named heiress presumptive to the British throne, and is the founder of the Hanoverian line of kings.

Peace of Westphalia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Peace of Westphalia
Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 (1648) by Gerard ter Borch

The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 (1648) by Gerard ter Borch
Type Peace treaty
Drafted 1646–1648
Signed 15 May – 24 October 1648
Location Osnabrück and MünsterWestphaliaHoly Roman Empire
Parties 109

The Peace of Westphalia (GermanWestfälischer Friede) was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabrück and Münster, largely ending the European wars of religion, including the Thirty Years’ War. The treaties of Westphalia brought to an end a calamitous period of European history which caused the deaths of approximately eight million people.[1] Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, though this interpretation has been challenged.[2]

The negotiation process was lengthy and complex. Talks took place in two different cities, as each side wanted to meet on territory under its own control. A total of 109 delegations arrived to represent the belligerent states, but not all delegations were present at the same time. Three treaties were signed to end each of the overlapping wars: the Peace of Münster, the Treaty of Münster, and the Treaty of Osnabrück. These treaties ended the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) in the Holy Roman Empire, with the Habsburgs (rulers of Austria and Spain) and their Catholic allies on one side, battling the Protestant powers (Sweden, Denmark, Dutch, and certain Holy Roman principalities) allied with France (Catholic but anti-Habsburg). The treaties also ended the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic, with Spain formally recognising the independence of the Dutch.

The Peace of Westphalia established the precedent of peace established by diplomatic congress. A new system of political order arose in central Europe, based upon peaceful coexistence among sovereign states. Inter-state aggression was to be held in check by a balance of power, and a norm was established against interference in another state’s domestic affairs. As European influence spread across the globe, these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to

Caroleans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The uniform King Charles XII of Sweden, noted leader of the Caroleans, was wearing when he was killed.

Caroleans (Swedishkaroliner) were soldiers of the Swedish kings Charles XI and Charles XII. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in order to compensate for its lack of manpower and resources, Sweden strove for innovative ways to make a more effective army. The tactics of Caroleans differed from those of Western European soldiers in their greater reliance upon pikesrapiersbayonets, and offensive strategy, which helped them to be victorious, even when greatly outnumbered, in many important Swedish battles. The Carolean army is regarded as one of the most effective military forces of their time.[citation needed]

The Carolean army was always relatively small. As a result, heavy losses were irreparable, which forced commanders to choose their battles wisely and strategize carefully to keep casualties low. Despite the Carolean army’s effectiveness, its small size prevented Sweden from maintaining its hold on power, as evidenced by the decline of the Swedish Empire after its defeat in the Great Northern War. After a long march into the Russian interior—where the Carolean army was exposed to scorched earth tactics and frequent small raids—the exhausted and hungry Caroleans were decisively defeated by the Russians at the Battle of Poltava. During that war, an estimated 35,000 Swedish troops died—70 percent of the entire Carolean army—25,000 in combat, with another 10,000 dying from famine, disease, and exhaustion.

Infantry Gå–På[edit]

“Never have I seen such a combination of uncontrollable dash and
perfectly controlled discipline, such soldiers and such subjects
are not to be found the wide world over except in Sweden”

General Stenbock, Gadebusch 1712[13]

Caroleans using the Gå–På method of attack against Saxons at Battle of Düna, 1701.

The Gå–På (literally “Go-On”) method was based on shock tactics and was the standard combat technique used in the Swedish army at the time. This very aggressive tactic often resulted in short-lived successful battles against superior numbers of the enemy.

According to army regulations of 1694 and 1701, the infantry attack operated as follows: In four ranks with gaps, a Swedish battalion would march “smoothly and slowly” towards the enemy lines, braving enemy fire that often started at a distance of approximately 100 metres. The Swedish soldiers were told not to fire until “you could see the whites in the enemies eyes”, a range of roughly 50 metres. When the marching drums stopped the two rear ranks would fill the gaps within the two foremost ranks and fire a salvo, then draw their swords. The two rear ranks would then move back to their previous position, and the two foremost ranks would close the gaps in their lines, after which the battalion would resume their attack. The two foremost ranks would discharge their muskets in a final volley when they were within range to charge—a distance of roughly 20 metres. At these ranges, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops, having a great physical and psychological impact on opponents.

Directly after the final volley, the Caroleans charged the enemy ranks with pikes, bayonets, and rapiers.[14] Note that the pikes were used as an offensive weapon; in close combat, they had the advantage over their foes’ weapons due to their long reach. Often, complete ranks of enemies fled before physical contact was made, frightened by the long pikes and the fact that the Swedish battalions had previously calmly withstood their fire.[15]

Cavalry Gå–På[edit]

The Swedish cavalry fought in a similarly aggressive way (also called the “Carolingian manner”).[6] Prior to the battle, also in contrast to the rest of Europe—which at the time would form up “knee to the knee”—the Swedish cavalry would form up in a slight wedge formations in two or three ranks, “knee behind knee” to successfully achieve the most densely clustered cavalry formation possible to more fiercely impact the enemy line. They had thrusting rapiers which would further increase the effectiveness of the charge.[9] The squadron would usually not use their pistols during the charge, only blades. In 1704, a regulation was made that forbade using the pistol when charging (on occasion, the pistols were allowed, as happened in Fraustadt, or when chasing routed enemies). In 1705, another regulation decreed that the cavalry would ride at a trot during the initial phase of the attack and then at a full gallop just before reaching the enemy.[9][14] The trot conserved the energy of the horses for the final gallop, and only galloping the horses when within close range meant they wouldn’t tire as quickly during the rest of the battle.

 

Absolute monarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy

Sweden[edit]

The form of government instituted in Sweden under King Charles XI and passed on to his son, Charles XII is commonly referred to as absolute monarchy; however, the Swedish monarch was never absolute in the sense that he wielded arbitrary power. The monarch still ruled under the law and could only legislate in agreement with the Riksdag of the Estates; rather, the absolutism introduced was the monarch’s ability to run the government unfettered by the privy council, contrary to earlier practice. The absolute rule of Charles XI was instituted by the crown and the Riksdag in order to carry out the Great Reduction which would have been made impossible by the privy council which comprised the high nobility. After the death of Charles XII in 1718, the system of absolute rule was largely blamed for the ruination of the realm in the Great Northern War, and the reaction tipped the balance of power to the other extreme end of the spectrum, ushering in the Age of Liberty. After half a century of largely unrestricted parliamentary rule proved just as ruinous, King Gustav III seized back royal power in the coup d’état of 1772, and later once again abolished the privy council under the Union and Security Act in 1789, which, in turn, was rendered void in 1809 when Gustav IV Adolf was deposed in a coup and the constitution of 1809 was put in its place. The years between 1789 and 1809, then, are also referred to as a period of absolute monarchy.

 

Selection_476.jpg

Instrument of Government (1719)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Instrument of Government of 1719 (Swedish1719 års regeringsform) adopted on 21 February 1719 by the Riksdag of the Estates was one of the fundamental laws that made up the constitution of Sweden from 1719 to 1772. It came about after the succession crisis which occurred after the death of Charles XII of Sweden, when the monarch died childless during the Great Northern War, leaving two potential heirs: his sister Ulrica Eleonora of Sweden, and his nephew Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp.[1][page needed] The constitution was a result of the agreement made between Ulrica Eleonora and the Riksdag of the Estates, were the latter acknowledged her as queen regnant in exchange for signing a new constitution of reduced royal power and introduction of a parliamentarian system.[2][page needed] The Instrument of Government of 1719 was only revised to a very small extent in the following Instrument of Government (1720), and it can therefore said to be in effect during the entire Age of Liberty, and represent the political system in Sweden until the Swedish Constitution of 1772.

The Instrument of Government of 1719 abolished the Carolinian absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, where the monarch shared his/her power with the parliament referred to as the Riksdag of the Estates. The Riksdag of the Estates consisted of the estates of the nobility, clergy, burghers and the peasantry, which were elected by those eligible to vote. Also women were in fact granted limited suffrage, providing they were taxpaying guild members of legal majority.[3] The Government was referred to as the Royal Council. It consisted of 16 members, from the first three estates of the Riksdag. The members were appointed by the Riksdag: each of the first three estates appointed three candidates for the cabinet posts of government to the monarch, who were then allowed to select his/her preferred candidate among the three. During the votes among the members of government, every member had one vote each, while the monarch had two.

Ulrika Eleonora or Ulrica Eleanor (23 January 1688 – 24 November 1741), also known as Ulrika Eleonora the Younger, reigned as Queen of Sweden from 5 December 1718 until her abdication on 29 February 1720 in favour of her husband Frederick I of Sweden, which made her Queen consort of Sweden until her death.

Age of Liberty

Instrument of Government (1719)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Instrument of Government of 1719 (Swedish1719 års regeringsform) adopted on 21 February 1719 by the Riksdag of the Estates was one of the fundamental laws that made up the constitution of Sweden from 1719 to 1772. It came about after the succession crisis which occurred after the death of Charles XII of Sweden, when the monarch died childless during the Great Northern War, leaving two potential heirs: his sister Ulrica Eleonora of Sweden, and his nephew Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp.[1][page needed] The constitution was a result of the agreement made between Ulrica Eleonora and the Riksdag of the Estates, were the latter acknowledged her as queen regnant in exchange for signing a new constitution of reduced royal power and introduction of a parliamentarian system.[2][page needed] The Instrument of Government of 1719 was only revised to a very small extent in the following Instrument of Government (1720), and it can therefore said to be in effect during the entire Age of Liberty, and represent the political system in Sweden until the Swedish Constitution of 1772.

The Instrument of Government of 1719 abolished the Carolinian absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, where the monarch shared his/her power with the parliament referred to as the Riksdag of the Estates. The Riksdag of the Estates consisted of the estates of the nobility, clergy, burghers and the peasantry, which were elected by those eligible to vote. Also women were in fact granted limited suffrage, providing they were taxpaying guild members of legal majority.[3] The Government was referred to as the Royal Council. It consisted of 16 members, from the first three estates of the Riksdag. The members were appointed by the Riksdag: each of the first three estates appointed three candidates for the cabinet posts of government to the monarch, who were then allowed to select his/her preferred candidate among the three. During the votes among the members of government, every member had one vote each, while the monarch had two.

In Swedish and Finnish history, the Age of Liberty (SwedishFrihetstiden) (FinnishVapauden aika) is a half-century-long period of parliamentary governance and increasing civil rights, beginning with Charles XII‘s death in 1718 and ending with Gustav III‘s self-coup in 1772. The shift of power from monarch to parliament was a direct effect of the Great Northern War, which was disastrous for Sweden.

Suffrage under the parliamentary government of the Age of Liberty was not universal. Although the taxed peasantry was represented in the Parliament, its influence was disproportionately small, while commoners without taxed property had no suffrage at all.

Riksdag of the Estates (formally SwedishRiksens ständer; informally SwedishStåndsriksdagen) was the name used for the Estates of Sweden when they were assembled. Until its dissolution in 1866, the institution was the highest authority in Sweden next to the King. It was a Diet made up of the Four Estates, which historically were the lines of division in Swedish society:

Russian Pillage of 1719–21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Russian Pillage of 1719-1721)

Jump to navigationJump to search

Relief depicting the Russian atrocities 1719, on the façade of a hotel in Södertälje

The Russian Pillage (Swedish: rysshärjningarna), is the name for the action of the Imperial Russian Fleet toward the Swedish civilian population along the Swedish east coast, as well as expeditions and the raids of single unit in the inland, during the finishing years of the Great Northern War in 1719–1721. The purpose was to pillage, sack and burn to force the Swedish regime to concessions during the peace negotiations on Åland. The Swedish representative, Georg Heinrich von Görtz, was at the time stalling the negotiations in hope of military support from Great Britain.[1] Peter the Great, on the other hand, wished for a swift end to the war, which would make it possible for him to focus on inner reform.[2]

In the summer of 1719, a Russian fleet consisting of 132 galleys and several smaller boats, totalling 26000 men, assaulted Stockholm archipelago. The Russian fleet pillaged along the coat of Uppland almost as far north as Gävle, and the coast of Södermanland as far south as Norrköping. The archipelago was severely devastated by the assaults. On several of the larger islands, almost all buildings were burnt down.[3] The entire city of Trosa was burnt to the ground, save for the city church and bell tower.[4] After receiving reinforcements, the Russian fleet attempted to attack Stockholm but were defeated on 12 August 1719.[3]

In 1720, Russian troops razed Umeå, and in 1721 the cities of HudiksvallSundsvallSöderhamnHärnösand and Piteå.[5]

The Russian forces were stopped after a Swedish counterattack at the Battle of Grengam (Slaget vid Ledsund, Swedish) of which 43 of the total 61 galleons and were destroyed as well as 2,200 Russians were killed. This resulted in the Swedish East Coast being saved. More similar encounters were repeated until the peace of Treaty of Nystad.

Queen consort[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrika_Eleonora,_Queen_of_Sweden

Georg Engelhard Schröder – Ulrika Eleonora Queen of Sweden

The reign of her husband began the period traditionally known as the Age of Liberty, when the monarchy lost most of its power to a parliamentary system. As queen consort, she withdrew to private life. Ulrika Eleonora had married for love and was known to be fiercely loyal to Frederick. Initially, the relationship between Ulrika Eleonora and Frederick was described as a happy one, and before Frederick became monarch, he restricted himself to the role of her consort. After two miscarriages in 1715 and 1718 and at least until 1724, the Queen expressed hope that she would give birth to an heir, but ultimately her marriage was childless.[5] King Frederick suggested placing his brother and his line in the House of Hesse in the succession line, and though this attempt was unsuccessful, Ulrika Eleonora supported this choice rather than her nephew the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp.[6]

Queen Ulrika Eleonora enjoyed great popularity during the reign of her spouse, partly as the last member of the old royal house, and partly because of her personal piety.[6] She was aware that this gave her power to influence policy, and when she let her opinion be known, it was often followed.[6] This influence was recognized. During the Riksdag of 1738, for example, the queen expressed her displeasure when Carl Gustaf Tessin was due to be elected to a post, which resulted in public protests which did not quiet down until Tessin had been received at the Royal Palace and allowed to kiss the bare hand of the queen, who assured him that she had no intention of interfering.[6]

The relationship between Ulrika Eleonora and Frederick changed after he became king, and it was said that when she gave him the crown, she gave him his freedom.[7] King Frederick had mistresses, and his extramarital affairs increased after he lost much of his royal authority in 1723.

In 1734, Frederick became the first king in Swedish history to have an official mistress, the noblewoman Hedvig Taube, who was given the title Countess of Hessenstein. Ulrika Eleonora expressed her disapproval to her close confidant Emerentia von Düben,[4] who convinced her never to display any public reaction to the affair, as it would be beneath the queen’s dignity and her position was untouchable: “As the Moon travels along its course over the sky without bothering over the barks of dogs, so should Her Majesty despise the gossip, which has been unleashed by this much unfortunate and blinded commitment”.[3] By convincing Ulrika Eleonora not to publicly display her displeasure of his adultery, Emerentia von Düben also became favored by King Frederik.[4] Ulrika Eleonora sternly followed the policy of not displaying her feelings about the adultery for years. At the beginning of the affair, on one occasion she even walked publicly with Hedvig Taube in her effort to defend the reputation of her husband.[5]

During the Riksdag of 1738, the question of the king’s adultery was raised by the clergy estate within the Riksdag of the Estates, and a letter of protest was presented to the king on 3 April 1739.[6]

Hedvig Taube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Hedvig Taube by Lorens Pasch.

Hedvig Ulrika Taube (31 October 1714 – 11 February 1744), also Countess von Hessenstein was a Swedish courtier and countess, a Holy Roman countess of the Empire, and royal mistress to king Frederick I of Sweden from 1731 to 1744. She is regarded as the only official royal mistress in Swedish history.

Early life[edit]

Hedvig Taube was one of 9 children of count Edvard Didrik Taube and Christina Maria Falkenberg. Her sister, Catherine Charlotte, was to marry the brother of famous scientist Countess Eva Ekeblad, who was also the aunt of the renowned Axel von Fersen the Younger. In 1716, the future king Frederick became one of the godparents to her sister Christina Beata. During the 1720s, her father was nearly ruined and placed in heavy debt because of gambling and bad business: in 1730, the family had been forced to change their city residence to a cheaper one.[1]

Hedvig Taube was described as a beauty, and in 1730, the king noticed her, likely on a visit to baron Otto Reinhold Strömfelt, who was married to her paternal aunt. He started to court her with baskets of fruit and flowers sent to the home of her indebted father: reportedly, jewels and other valuable items were hidden beneath the fruit.[2] He also inquired whether Arvid Horn would be willing to house her, so as to make it possible for the king to court her in person.[3] Horn refused, and during the Riksdag of 1731, he warned the king that he was the topic of dislike in the Clergy estate for courting a young unmarried lady.[4]

Between constitutionalism and absolutism[edit]

Gustav worked towards reform in the same direction as other contemporary sovereigns of the Age of Enlightenment. Criminal justice became more lenient, the death penalty was restricted to a relatively short list of crimes (including murder), and torture was abolished in order to gain confessions, although the “strict death penalty”, with torture-like corporal punishment preceding the execution, was maintained.

Earlier in foreign affairs, however, and privately, Gustav had shown considerable interest in the American Revolution and had this to say about it in October 1776:

 

 

 

 

 

It is such an interesting drama to see a nation create itself, that I – if I now had not been who I am – would go to America to follow up close every phase in the emergence of this new republic. – This perhaps is America’s century. The new republic, which hardly has a population put together better than Rome had to begin with, may perhaps take advantage of Europe some day, in the same manner as Europe has taken advantage of America for two centuries. No matter what, I cannot help but admire their courage and enthusiastically appreciate their daring.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_III_of_Sweden

Gustav III[edit]

King Gustav III

Adolf Frederick of Sweden died on February 12, 1771. The elections afterward resulted in a partial victory for the Caps party, especially among the lower orders; but in the estate of the peasantry the Caps majority was merely nominal, while the mass of the nobility was dead against them. Nothing could be done, however, till the return of the new king, Gustav III, from Paris.[1]

Coronation oath[edit]

The new coronation oath contained three revolutionary clauses:

  1. The first aimed at making abdications in the future impossible by binding the king to reign uninterruptedly.
  2. The second obliged him to abide, not by the decision of all the estates together, as heretofore, but by that of the majority only, with the view of enabling the actually dominant lower estates (in which there was a large Cap majority) to rule without the nobility.
  3. The third clause required him, in all cases of preferment, to be guided not “principally” as heretofore, but “solely” by merit.

All through 1771 the estates wrangled over the clauses. An attempt of the king to mediate foundered on the suspicions of the estate of burgesses, and on February 24, 1772. the nobility yielded.[1]

Constitution[edit]

The non-noble Cap majority now proceeded to attack the Privy Council. the Riksrådet, the last stronghold of the Hats, and, on April 25 of that year, it succeeded in ousting them. It was now, for the first time, that Gustav began to consider the possibility of a revolution.[1]

The new constitution of August 20, 1772 which Gustav III imposed upon the Riksdag of the Estates, converted a weak and disunited republic into a strong but limited monarchy. The estates could assemble only when summoned by him; he could dismiss them whenever he thought fit; and their deliberations were to be confined exclusively to the propositions which he laid before them. But these extensive powers were subjected to important checks. Thus, without the previous consent of the estates, no new law could be imposed, no old law abolished, no offensive war undertaken, no extraordinary war subsidy levied. The estates alone could tax themselves; they had the absolute control of the Riksbank – the Bank of Sweden, and the right of controlling the national expenditure.[1]

In Sweden the change was most popular. But Gustav’s first Riksdag, that of 1778, opened the eyes of the deputies to the fact that their political supremacy had departed. The king was now their sovereign lord; and, for all his courtesy and gentleness, the jealousy with which he guarded and the vigour with which he enforced the prerogative plainly showed that he meant to remain so. But it was not till after eight years more had elapsed that actual trouble began. The Riksdag of 1778 had been obsequious; the Riksdag of 1786 was mutinous. It rejected nearly all the royal measures outright, or so modified them that Gustav himself withdrew them. When he dismissed the estates, the speech from the throne held out no prospect of their speedy revocation.[2]

Nevertheless, within three years, the king was obliged to summon another Riksdag, which met at Stockholm on the January 26, 1789. His attempt in the interval to rule without a parliament had been disastrous. It was only by a breach of his own constitution that he had been able to declare war against Russia in April 1788; the Conspiracy of Anjala (July) had paralysed all military operations at the very opening of the campaign; and the sudden invasion of his western provinces by the Danes, almost simultaneously (September), seemed to bring him to the verge of ruin. But the contrast, at this crisis, between his self-sacrificing patriotism and the treachery of the Russophil aristocracy was so striking that, when the Riksdag assembled, Gustav found that the three lower estates were ultra-royalist, and with their aid he succeeded, not without running great risks in crushing the opposition of the nobility by a second coup d’état on February 16, 1789 and passing the famous Act of Union and Security which gave the king an absolutely free hand as regards foreign affairs and the command of the army, and made further treason impossible. The nobility never forgave him.[2]

Foreign affairs[edit]

Abroad the Swedish revolution made a great sensation. Catherine II of Russia concluded a secret alliance with Denmark, in which the Swedish revolution was described as “an act of violence” justifying both powers in seizing the first favourable opportunity for intervention to restore the Swedish constitution of 1720.[1]

Unknown to party leaders, Gustav had renewed the Swedish alliance with France and had received solemn assurances of assistance from Louis XV if Gustav were to reestablish monarchical rule in Sweden. Moreover, France agreed to pay its outstanding subsidies to Sweden, amounting to 1.5 million livres annually, beginning from January 1772. What’s more, Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes, was to be sent to Stockholm to circumvent the designs of Russia just as he had previously done in the Sublime Porte at Constantinople.[1]

https://libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

Jefferson acted unilaterally against the Barbary pirates.”

Another incident frequently cited on behalf of a general presidential power to deploy American forces and commence hostilities involves Jefferson’s policy toward the Barbary states, which demanded protection money from governments whose ships sailed the Mediterranean. Congressional naval legislation had provided that, among other things, six frigates “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” (Final authorization for the funding of the last three of these ships was approved only in late 1798, so the frigates in question were ready for action immediately prior to Jefferson’s accession to office.) It was to this instruction and authority that Jefferson appealed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean. In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.”

In late 1801, the pasha of Tripoli did declare war on the U.S. Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense”; Congress alone could authorize “measures of offense also.” Thus Jefferson told Congress: “I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates. “Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate,” Louis Fisher writes, “imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.’”

Consider also Jefferson’s statement to Congress in late 1805 regarding a boundary dispute with Spain over Louisiana and Florida. According to Jefferson, Spain appeared to have an “intention to advance on our possessions until they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force…. But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal that which they shall approve.”

 

First Barbary War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

First Barbary War
Part of the Barbary Wars
EnterpriseTripoli.jpg
USS Enterprise fighting the Tripolitan polacca Tripoli by William Bainbridge Hoff, 1878
Date 10 May 1801 – 10 June 1805
Location
Off the Mediterranean coast of TripoliDerna
Result American victory
Belligerents
United States United States
Sweden Sweden (1801–02)
 Sicily[1][2]
 Tripolitania
Morocco Morocco (1802)[3][4]
Commanders and leaders
United States Thomas Jefferson
United States Richard Dale
United States Richard Morris
United States William Eaton
United States Edward Preble
Sweden Gustav IV Adolf
Sweden Rudolf Cederström
Strength
United States
First Squadron:
4 frigates
1 schooner
Second Squadron:
6 frigates
1 schooner
Third Squadron:
2 frigates
3 brigs
2 schooners
1 ketch
Swedish Royal Navy:
3 frigates
William Eaton’s invasion:
US Marines, William Eaton, 3 Midshipmen, and several civilians
Approx. 500 Greek and Arab mercenaries
Various cruisers
11–20 gunboats
4,000 soldiers
Casualties and losses
United States:
35 killed
64 wounded
Greek & Arab mercenaries:
killed and wounded unknown
Estimated 800 dead, 1,200 wounded at Derna plus ships and crew lost in naval defeats

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitanian War and the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two Barbary Wars, in which the United States and Sweden fought against the four North African states known collectively as the “Barbary States“. Three of these were nominal provinces of the Ottoman Empire, but in practice autonomous: TripoliAlgiers, and Tunis. The fourth was the independent Sultanate of Morocco.[5]

The cause of the U.S. participation was pirates from the Barbary States seizing American merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom, demanding the U.S. pay tribute to the Barbary rulers. United States President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay this tribute. Sweden had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.[6]

Battle of Derna (1805)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Battle of Derne)

Jump to navigationJump to search

Battle of Derna
Part of the First Barbary War
Attack on Derna by Charles Waterhouse 01.jpg
William Eaton leading the attack on Derne with the Marines, soldiers and mercenaries under his command
Date April 27 – May 13, 1805
Location
Result Decisive American victory
Belligerents
United States Flag of Tripoli 18th century.svg Eyalet of Tripolitania
Commanders and leaders
William Eaton
Presley O’Bannon
Oliver Hazard Perry
Hamet Bey
Hassan Bey
Strength
8 U.S. Marines
400–500 mercenaries
Unknown artillery
sloop-of-war
brig
schooner
4,000 infantrycavalry
artillery pieces

Barbary slave trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The redemption (buying back) of Christian captives by Mercedarian friars in the Barbary states.

The Barbary Coast

The Barbary slave trade refers to the slave markets that were lucrative and vast on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, which included the Ottoman provinces of AlgeriaTunisia and Tripolitania and the independent sultanate of Morocco, between the 16th and middle of the 18th century. The Ottoman provinces in North Africa were nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, but in reality they were mostly autonomous. The North African slave markets were part of the Arab slave trade.

European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to the NetherlandsIreland and the Southwest of Britain, as far north as Iceland and into the eastern Mediterranean.

The Ottoman eastern Mediterranean was the scene of intense piracy.[1] As late as the 18th century, piracy continued to be a “consistent threat to maritime traffic in the Aegean”.[2]

 

Rise of the Barbary Pirates[edit]

The bombardment of Algiers in 1682, by Abraham Duquesne.

After a revolt in the mid-17th century reduced the ruling Ottoman Pashas to little more than figureheads in the region, the towns of TripoliAlgiersTunis, and others became independent in all but name. Without a large central authority and its laws, the pirates themselves started to gain much influence.

In 1785 when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him what right he had to take slaves in this way. He replied that the “right” was “founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise”.[14]

Pirate raids for the acquisition of slaves occurred in towns and villages on the African Atlantic seaboard, as well as in Europe. Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in ItalySpainFrancePortugalEnglandNetherlandsIrelandScotland, and as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries. It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves in Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli during this time period. The slave trade in Europeans in other parts of the Mediterranean is not included in this estimation.[15]

Famous accounts of Barbary slave raids include a mention in the diary of Samuel Pepys and a raid on the coastal village of Baltimore, Ireland, during which pirates left with the entire populace of the settlement. The attack was led by a Dutch captain, Jan Janszoon van Haarlem, also known as Murad Reis the Younger. Janszoon also led the 1627 raid on Iceland. Such raids in the Mediterranean were so frequent and devastating that the coastline between Venice and Malaga[16] suffered widespread depopulation, and settlement there was discouraged. In fact, it was said that “there was no one left to capture any longer.”[13]

The power and influence of these pirates during this time was such that nations including the United States paid tribute in order to stave off their attacks.[17] Supplies from the Black Sea appear to have been even larger. A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul’s slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700.[11]

 

“Admit the Facts of life in international political relationships.” The Kakistocracy and Venal Establishment. #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy #MoslemBrotherhood #UnitedNationsHateSpeechDictats #TragedyandHope #RealPolitik #GeoPolitics #MassMigration #MultiCulturism #Immigration #FreeSpeech #WarofCivilisations #Agenda2030 “Do you find this happens all the time. Crucial point one day becomes a crime. And I’m not the kind that likes to tell you just what I want to do” #AgeofConsent #NewOrder #ConquestofDough

 

 

 

I read an essay about Henry Kissinger’s Doctoral Thesis yesterday, http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/…/henry-kissinger-a…. It is a very good essay and explains well how Governments find it difficult to justify Real Politick at home, it contrasts Metternick the Austrian Diplomats experience of the Phenomenon with that of Castlereagh the British Foreign Secretary and their roles in the Vienna Treaty of 1815 post the Napoleonic wars. This treaty lasted well up to the momentous events of 1848 a period between the French revolutions and the Myriad revolutions of 1848.

Magdalena Rudenschöld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Magdalena Rudenschöld
Magdalena Charlotta Rudenschöld.jpg
Born
Magdalena Charlotta Rudenschöld

1 January 1766

Died 5 March 1823 (aged 57)

Other names Malla Rudenschöld and Malin Rudenschöld
Occupation Swedish nobility, lady-in-waiting.
Known for Standing trial for treason

Magdalena “Malla” or “Malin” Charlotta Rudenschöld (1 January 1766 – 5 March 1823 in StockholmSweden), was a Swedish countess, lady-in-waiting and conspirator. She was a key member of the Gustavian Armfelt Conspiracy who conspired to depose the regency government of Duke Charles. She was convicted of treasonpilloried, and sentenced to life in prison.

One of the others accused in the conspiracy said of her that her mistake was, “love, this violent passion, which among so many people of all ages overwhelms reason.”[1]

Introduction to court[edit]

Magdalena Rudenschöld was born to riksråd Count Carl Rudenschöld (1698-1783) and Countess Christina Sofia Bielke (1727-1803): her mother was the granddaughter of the famous Christina Piper. When her father lost his parliament seat in 1766 and the family experienced economic difficulties, her mother received a secret allowance from the Kingdom of France in exchange for benefiting French interests through her influential connections.[2] In 1784, Magdalena was appointed hovfröken (maid of honor) to the King‘s sister, Princess Sophia Albertine of Sweden. She replaced her older sister Caroline, a personal friend of the princess, who retired from her position after her marriage that year. Magdalena was described as beautiful, intelligent and passionate, and made a social success at court.

She was pursued by both Duke Charles, the King’s brother, and by the nobleman Gustaf Mauritz Armfelt, the King’s favorite. She turned the Duke down, but fell passionately in love with Armfelt. Armfelt had married Hedvig Ulrika De la Gardie in 1785, and made Rudenschöld his mistress. Rudenschöld claimed in her memoirs, that the King, who arranged the marriage of his favorite to De la Gardie, convinced her to advice Armfelt not to refuse the marriage for her sake, and that Armfelt agreed to the marriage after she assured him that it was her wish[3]

She is believed to have borne him two children in secret: one of them was born in Quedlingburg in Germany, where she accompanied Sophia Albertina in 1787[4] and the second one in 1790.[5] Both of the children, a daughter and a son, died soon after birth[6]

The conspiracy[edit]

In 1792, King Gustav III of Sweden was assassinated and his 14-year-old son Gustav IV (Adolf) ascended the throne. Duke Charles became his formal regent, although the duke’s favorite, Gustaf Adolf Reuterholm, became the real regent, presiding over the guardian government. Armfelt, who had hoped to take a place in the government, abandoned Rudenschöld and left the country in 1793. He made secret plans to overthrow the guardian government with Russian assistance and install a new regime headed by himself.

After his departure, Armfelt wrote to Rudenschöld, who wanted him back as her lover, and upheld a correspondence, which became more and more political.

Armfelt instructed Rudenschöld to consult the medium Ulrica Arfvidsson, which she did three days after his departure from Sweden. Rudenschöld described the prediction in her correspondence to Armfelt. Arfvidsson consulted her coffee leaves and stated that the man of whom Rudenschöld was thinking (Armfelt) had recently left the country in anger over a child (the King) and a small man (the regent, Duke Charles), whom he would soon scare by an agreement with a woman with a non-royal crown on her head (Catherine the Great). She predicted that Armfelt risked to be revealed by the loss of a letter, which would be his ruin. As for Rudenschöld herself, Arfvidsson told her that she was observed and mentioned to Catherine the Great in letters by a fat man (Otto Magnus von Stackelberg (ambassador)), that she should be careful, and that great sorrows awaited her.[7]

Magdalena Rudenschöld was not merely the tool of Armfelt in his plans: in their political correspondence, she expressed her own views and made her own suggestions in regard to the conspiracy[8] She was often the guest at receptions on the Russian embassy in Stockholm, were ambassador Stackelberg appreciated her wit and made reports about her to Empress Catherine. At one occasion, Baron Carl Hierta made a remark about a paper claiming that the Russian monarch would turn her attention toward Sweden after having conquered Poland, and asked Rudenschöld: “Would you say we are unhappy enough to have a Swedish Potocki?”, upon which she replied: “Why not? Those capable of murdering their King can also sell their country to foreign power”, a remark which was evidently reported to the Russian Empress[9]

Armfelt used Rudenschöld as a messenger, with the task to make contact with his followers, the young King and the Russian embassy. She is confirmed to have performed at least one of these missions.[10]

The plan was to obtain permission from the King himself, Gustav IV Adolf, to depose of his guardian government.[11] This permission was to be shown to the Russian Empress, who was then to support the coup with Russian military support. After the deposition of the government of Duke Charles, a new guardian government for the King would be established supported by Russia. Armfelt also promised to marry Rudenschöld.[12]

At a ball, Magdalena Rudenschöld handed the under age monarch a letter, in which Armfelt asked for his permission to make any move necessary to assure the safety of the King. When Gustav IV Adolf asked Magdalena Rudenschöld if he could show the letter to his uncle, the regent of the guardian government Duke Charles, however, she refused and took the letter back. Upon a second attempt to obtain his permission, he turned the letter back with the words that Armfelt had his eternal friendship as long as he was loyal also to his uncle.[13]

Magdalena Rudenschöld had been watched by the police because of her correspondence with Armfelt, who was known to belong to the opposition, and because she was known to participate in secret meetings with a group of men, of whom some were known to have acted as the spies of Armfelt during his time as the favorite of Gustav III.[14] This group was consistent of Johan Albrecht Ehrenström, his brother colonel lieutenant Nils Albrecht Ehrenström, colonel lieutenant Johan August Sandels, colonel lieutenant Johan Otto Lillje, the restaurant owner Forster and the writer major K. von Holthusen.[15] Rudenschöld was, by all accounts, the main actor of the plot in Sweden, while the others were assigned by Armfelt to act as her assistants.[16]

The correspondence of Rudenschöld and Armfelt, however, fell into the hands of acting-regent Reuterholm and regent-in-name Duke Charles through the Hamburg post office, which had been making copies of the letters and selling them. Reuterholm had Rudenschöld arrested on the night of 18 December 1793. She was one of the first of the conspirators to be detained. Rudenschöld had burned some of her papers, but love letters from the persistent Duke Charles were found amongst her remaining documents. Armfelt’s attempt to depose the government and take over had been discovered.

Trial and verdict[edit]

At first, the evidence against Rudenschöld was not convincing and she was able to defend herself with intelligence and force. She was subjected to intense pressure and housed, she said, “in a terrifying prison, where I saw neither sun nor moon”. When Armfelt’s estate was searched, however, 1,100 of her letters to him were found there. In several of them, she expressed contempt towards Duke Charles and Reuterholm, which worsened her position. The regent already held a grudge against her for refusing his advances and Reuterholm took offense at her judgement of him.

Eight of her love letters to Armfelt were printed and published by the regent and Reuterholm with the title, “In the old King’s House imprisoned a lady, known as Magdalena Charlotta daughter of Carl, letters to the traitor Baron Armfelt, known as Gustaf Mauritz, son of Magnus, about their love adventures”. In them, she mentioned her attempt to have an abortion, with the support of Armfelt, after having been made pregnant by him. The overwhelming hostility shown to her by the Duke and Reuterholm also gained her public sympathy, however, when Rudenschöld was confronted with better evidence in April 1794, she confessed, saying she had only participated because of her unlimited confidence in Armfelt.

Princess Sophia Albertina intervened and asked the regent to show mercy,[17] and she avoided being charged for abortion, which had been suggested at first.[18]

On 22 September 1794 Magdalena Rudenschöld was convicted and sentenced to death for treason, together with Armfelt, in his absence (being still abroad), and two other co-conspirators, Ehrenström and Aminoff. Her punishment was commuted to public pillorying, followed by life imprisonment. Chancellor Fredrik Sparre suggested that she be whipped, which was initially approved by Reuterholm, but this was met with indignation by the public, which thereafter nicknamed him “Whipping chancellor”.

Punishment[edit]

She was stripped of her last name and her status as a noble, as were Armfelt and all the other accomplices that had been noble. In prison documents she was called “Magdalena, daughter of Carl, former Lady.” The following day, Rudenschöld was taken to the gallows on the square, which was described as “a heart-aching spectacle”. She was dressed in a grey skirt and a black top and had her hair down. She stood with her head held high and drank two glasses of water. The audience was reported to have felt sorry for her, according to Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp, because of, “her youth, her tragic fate and possibly because of the remains of her former beauty”. After her reprieve from hanging, a carriage came to take her to jail and she fainted, according to writer Märta Helena Reenstierna “with the same grace and decorum as Mrs. Olin once had in Acus and Galathea” (the opera). Reportedly, people were overheard saying that the regent’s lover, Charlotte Slottsberg, should have been standing on the platform instead of Rudenschöld[19]

One of Rudenschöld’s own friends, Count A.F. Skjöldenbrand also described the event: “Only a few of the mob began to shout at her, but Silfverhielm (Commander of the Guard) ordered the guards to silence them”. She was supposed to have had an iron collar around her neck, but when the executioner held it up, she shivered and shrugged backwards, after which he

“let down his hands, and she stepped forward to the pole without an iron around her neck, where she stood as pale as a dead body for about twenty minutes until her sentence was commuted, after which she fainted and was taken away as if dead”.

Rudenschöld wrote about her arrival in the prison workhouse:

“I was placed in a rental carriage surrounded by guards. I remained unconscious all the way to the workhouse, some distance from Hornstull, and did not open my eyes until the afternoon, where I found myself alone lying on the floor in a dark cell with a bowl of water and a glass of wine beside me. I had not eaten that whole day. When I touched the glass I heard the shout ‘she is still alive!’. I looked up to the window and saw outside all the workhouse prisoners, watching me. I wanted to rise and remove myself from their sight, but found myself unable to move, and fell back to the floor.”

Two-and-a-half years later, in November 1796, Rudenschöld was released from jail under Reuterholm’s order, as he had wanted to release her before the young King was declared of legal majority later that year and pardoned her himself.

When she left the workhouse, she wrote on the prison wall (in French):

Que le bonheur arrive lentement! 
Que le bonheur s'éloigne avec vitesse! 
Dans le cours de ma triste jeunesse 
Si j'ai joui ce ne fut qu'un moment; 
Je suis punie de ce moment d'ivresse...

L'espoir qui trompe a toujours sa douceur 
Et dans nos maux souvent il nous console; 
Mais loin de moi l'illusion s'envolé; 
Et l'espérance est morte dans mon coeur, 
Ce coeur hélas! que le chagrin dévore, 
Dans le passé veut resair encore 
De son bonheur la fugitive aurore 
Et tous les bien qu'il n'a plus anjourd' hui.

Mais du présent, l'image trop fidèle 
Sans cesse s'attache à mes rêves trompeurs 
Et hélas! sans pitié la verité cruelle 
Viens m'avertir de répendre des pleurs. 

Later life[edit]

She was given back her name and the property, the small manor Stenstugu gård on Gotland, as compensation for her loss of a pension. For the first year, however, she was not allowed to leave the island.

On 5 July 1798 Rudenschöld gave birth to a son, Eric Ekmansdorff Karlsson, who later became an officer in Finland. His father was Rudenschöld’s servant, “a young, strong and beautiful lad”, whom she openly lived with. However, the relationship ended unhappily, and he is said to have treated her badly. In 1801, she moved to Switzerland and was taken under the protection of Germaine de Stael, at the recommendation of Armfelt, who also arranged for her son to be educated in Saint Petersburg in Russia and supported her financially. She was often seen in Coppet, and was described as charming but serious.

In 1812, she returned to Sweden and lived in the household of her brother, Thure Gabriel; acting as governess to his children. Socially, she was described as easy-going but suspicious at this point and unwilling to talk about her past. Eventually, she moved to Stockholm, where she died in 1823.

In fiction[edit]

Magdalena Rudenschöld was the subject of the novel Kärleks ljuva plåga : En roman om Magdalena Rudenschöld (The Sweet Torment of Love: A novel about Magdalena Rudenschöld) by Per-Martin Hamberg (1974).

Charles XIII of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Charles XIII
Charles XIII of Sweden.jpg

Charles wearing the insignia of the Order of Charles XIII (in red)
King of Sweden
Reign 6 June 1809 – 5 February 1818
Predecessor Gustav IV Adolf
Successor Charles XIV John
King of Norway
Reign 4 November 1814 – 5 February 1818
Predecessor Christian Frederick
Successor Charles III John
Born 7 October 1748
Stockholm, Sweden
Died 5 February 1818 (aged 69)
Stockholm, Sweden
Burial 20 March 1818

Spouse
Issue Princess Louise Hedvig
Prince Carl Adolf, Duke of Värmland
Carl Löwenhielm (illegitimate)
House Holstein-Gottorp
Father Adolf Frederick of Sweden
Mother Louisa Ulrika of Prussia
Religion Lutheran

Charles XIII, or Carl XIII, (SwedishKarl XIII, 7 October 1748 – 5 February 1818[1]), was King of Sweden (as Charles XIII) from 1809 and King of Norway (proclaimed as Charles XIII but in recent times accurately referred to as Charles II) from 1814 to his death. He was the second son of King Adolf Frederick of Sweden and Louisa Ulrika of Prussia, sister of Frederick the Great.[2]

Though known as King Charles XIII in Sweden, he was actually the seventh Swedish king by that name, as Charles IX (reigned 1604–1611) had adopted his numeral after studying a fictitious history of Sweden.[3]

Early life[edit]

Prince Charles, in 1758 by Ulrica Pasch.

Prince Charles was placed under the tutelage of Hedvig Elisabet Strömfelt and then Ulrica Schönström. He was appointed grand admiral when he was but few days old. He was described as a good dancer at the amateur theatre of the royal court. Reportedly he was not very close to his mother. The Queen preferred her youngest children, Sophie Albertine and Frederick Adolf.[4]

Charles was, however, his father’s favorite, and similar to him in personality.[5] He was also described as close to his brother Gustav during their childhood.[4]

Because of his position as the heir to the throne after his elder brother Gustav, he was early targeted as a useful tool for the opposition to his brother: already in the 1760s, the Caps (party) tried to use him against his brother the crown prince through his then love interest countess Brita Horn, daughter of the Cap’s politician Adam Horn.[5] Gustav, however, was always careful to prevent Charles from being used by the opposition, which came to its first test during the December Crisis (1768), when Charles, ultimately, did not let himself be used by the Caps party.[5] In 1770, he made a journey through Germany and France alone.

Reign of Gustav III[edit]

Gustav III, King of Sweden, and his brothers

After the death of his father in 1771, when his brother the crown prince was abroad, the Caps (party) once again attempted to use him against his brother, now King Gustav III of Sweden, and his mother Louisa Ulrika used this in order to have her own rights as a dowager queen respected by the Caps.[5] Upon the departure of his mother to Prussia, and the return of his brother, however, Gustav III managed to win him to his side.

In 1772 he cooperated in the Revolution of 1772 of his elder brother, King Gustav. He was given the task of using his connections in the Caps party to neutralize it and secure the southern provinces by use of the military, tasks he performed successfully[5] and for which the king rewarded him with the title Duke of Södermanland.

Duke Charles in early years was the object of his mother’s plans to arrange political marriages for her children. On the wish of his mother, he was to be married to her niece, his cousin Philippine of Brandenburg-Schwedt, a plan to which he had agreed in 1770. The government, however, refused to issue negotiations because of the costs.[4] After the accession of Gustav III and the coup d’état which introduced absolute monarchy, his brother terminated these plans against their mother’s will in October 1772, and began negotiations for a marriage between Charles and his cousin Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp. As King Gustav had not consummated his own marriage, he wished to place the task of providing an heir to the throne with his brother. Charles agreed to the marriage in August 1773, and the marriage took place the following year. After a false alarm of a pregnancy of Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte in 1775, the king finally consummated his own marriage. The royal couple lived separate private lives and each had extramarital affairs.[4] During the great succession scandal of 1778, when queen dowager Louisa Ulrika questioned the paternity of the issue of Gustav III, Charles sided with his brother the king against their mother, this despite the fact that it was in fact he who had informed her of the rumors regarding the legitimacy, something he however withheld from the king.[5]

Coronet created for Prince Charles and worn at his brother Gustav’s coronation in 1772.

Charles was described as dependent and easily influenced.[6] His numerous affairs gave him the reputation of being a libertine.[4] He was reputed for his “harem” of lovers,[4] of which the more well known were Augusta von FersenCharlotte EckermanFrançoise-Éléonore VillainMariana Koskull and Charlotte Slottsberg, the last one reputed to have had political influence over him. He unsuccessfully courted Magdalena Rudenschöld, and her refusal of his advances has been pointed out as the cause of the harsh treatment he exposed her to as regent during the Armfelt conspiracy. After the late 1790s, when his health deteriorated as a result of a series of rheumatic attacks, his relationship to his consort improved and she gained more influence over him.[7]

The Duke was known for his interest in the supernatural and mysticism, and he was engaged in several secret societies. He was a member of the Freemasons. He was reportedly a client of the fortune teller Ulrica Arfvidsson, and he also favored the medium Henrik Gustaf Ulfvenklou. In 1811, he founded the Order of Charles XIII, a Swedish order of chivalry awarded only to a maximum number of 33 knights, on the condition of confessing the Lutheran Evangelic Religion and being Freemasons. All Princes and Kings of the Bernadotte dynasty, the royal house of Sweden are from baptism, incorporate parts of the royal order of knights and freemasons. In addition are the order of merit granted to members of foreign Grand Lodges affiliated to the so-called Swedish System,[8] such as the Grande Loge Nationale Française,[9] if of royal rank. When the Swedish order of Freemason’s states that “Freemasonry in Sweden has continued to develop under leadership of their Grand Masters, all of them belonging to the Royal House since more than 200 years“,[10] the origin of which arrives in large from King Charles II of Norway, XIII of Sweden.

Duke Charles was given several political tasks during his tenure as a duke. In 1777, he served as regent during Gustav III’s stay in Russia. In 1780, he served as formal chief commander during the king’s stay in Spa. The same year, Gustav III named him regent for his son should he succeed him while still a minor.[5] However, he was not appointed regent during the journey of the king to Italy and France in 1783-84, and in the following years, he came under the influence of Gustaf Adolf Reuterholm, who was in opposition to the monarch, and came to be less trusted by Gustav III.[5]

In 1785, he was offered the Dukedom of Courland by the nobility of the Duchy and given the support of Gustav III.[11] This however never materialized.

On the outbreak of the Russo-Swedish War of 1788 he served with distinction as admiral of the fleet, especially at the battles of Hogland (7 June 1788) and Öland (26 July 1789). On the latter occasion he would have won a signal victory but for the remissness of his second-in-command, Admiral Liljehorn.

The autumn of 1789, Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte wished to depose Gustav III and place her husband Duke Charles upon the throne.[12] Her ideal was the Swedish Constitution of 1772, which she saw as a good tool for an enlightened aristocracy, and the war and the Union and Security Act had made her a leading part of the opposition. She cooperated with Prince Frederick Adolf of Sweden and Gustaf Adolf Reuterholm.[12] The plan was to force Charles to act as a symbol of the opposition to the Union and Security Act when the time was right.[12] When the time arrived to make Charles act, however, he refused, which effectively foiled the coup.[12]

Charles was in close connection to the opposition against Gustav III, and it is debated whether he knew of and supported the plans to assassinate the king.[13]

Reign of Gustav IV Adolf[edit]

On the assassination of Gustav III in 1792, Charles acted as regent of Sweden till 1796 on behalf of his nephew, King Gustav IV, who was a minor when his father was shot in the Stockholm opera. Gustav III had designated him regent in his earlier will. When he was dying, he altered the will, and while still appointing Charles regent of his minor son, he was no longer to rule absolute, but restricted by a government consisted of the supporters of Gustav III.[5] After the death of the monarch, however, Charles successfully contested the will and was given unlimited power as sole regent.[5]

The Duke-regent was in practice not willing or capable to manage the state affairs, reportedly because of his lack of energy and staying power.[5] Instead, he entrusted the power of government to his favorite and adviser Gustaf Adolf Reuterholm, whose influence over him was supreme. These four years have been considered perhaps the most miserable and degrading period in Swedish history; an Age of Lead succeeding an Age of Gold, as it has been called, and may be briefly described as alternations of fantastic jacobinism and the ruthless despotism. Reuterholm ruled as the uncontested regent de facto the entire tenure of the regency, “only seldom disturbed by other influences or any personal will of charles”.[5] The unexpectedly mild sentences of the involved in the regicide of Gustav III attracted attention.[5] The marriage negotiations of the young king disturbed the relationship to Russia, and the alliance with revolutionary France was greatly disliked by other powers.[5]

On the coming of age of Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden in November 1796, the duke’s regency ended. His relationship to Gustav IV Adolf was cordial though never close, and he was not entrusted with much responsibility during the rule of his nephew.[5] In 1797 and 1798, he and his consort had their first children, though in neither case the child lived. After this, the Duke and Duchess made a journey through Germany and Austria in 1798-99.[5]

In 1803, the Boheman affair caused a severe conflict between Gustav IV Adolf and the ducal couple. The mystic Karl Adolf Boheman (1764–1831) had been introduced to the couple by Count Magnus Stenbock in 1793 and gained great influence by promising to reveal scientific secrets about the occult. Boheman inducted them into a secret society Yellow Rose (society) in 1801, where both sexes where accepted as members, and to which the Counts and Countesses Ruuth and Brahe as well as the mother of the queen were introduced. Boheman was arrested upon an attempt to recruit the monarch, who accused him of revolutionary agendas and expelled him. The ducal couple were exposed in an informal investigation by the monarch, and the duchess was questioned in the presence of the royal council.[14] In 1808, Charles was again chief commander during Gustav IV Adolf’s stay in Finland. He is presumed to have been, if not involved, aware of the plans to depose Gustav IV Adolf in 1809.[5] He kept passive during the Coup of 1809, and accepted the post of regent from the victorious party after having assured himself that the deposed monarch was not in mortal danger.[5] Charles was initially not willing to accept the crown, however, out of consideration for the former king’s son.[5]

Reign[edit]

The elderly King Carl XIII

On 13 March 1809, those who had dethroned Gustav IV Adolf appointed Charles regent, and he was finally elected king by the Riksdag of the Estates. By the time he became king, he was 60 years old and prematurely decrepit. In November 1809, he was affected by a heart attack, and was not able to participate in government. The new constitution which was introduced also made his involvement in politics difficult. A planned attempt to enlarge the royal power in 1809–10 was not put into effect because of his indecisiveness and health condition.[5]

His incapacity triggered a search for a suitable heir. The initial choice was a Danish prince, Christian August, who took the name Charles August upon being adopted by Charles. However, Charles August died only a few months after his arrival in Sweden. One of Napoleon’s generals, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, was then chosen as his successor. The new crown prince took over the government as soon as he landed in Sweden in 1810. Charles’ condition deteriorated every year, especially after 1812, and he eventually became but a mute witness during the government councils chaired by the crown prince, having lost his memory and no longer being able to communicate.[5]

By the Union of Sweden and Norway on 4 November 1814 Charles became king of Norway under the name Carl II of Norway. After eight years as king only by title, Charles died without a natural heir on 5 February 1818, and Bernadotte succeeded him as King Charles XIV John.[15]

Charles was the 872nd Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece in Spain.

Family[edit]

He married his cousin Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp (1759–1818), on 7 July 1774 in Stockholm. Both of their children died in infancy:

  1. Lovisa Hedvig (2 July 1797 in Stockholm). Stillborn; buried at Riddarholmskyrkan (Riddarholm Church).[16]
  2. Carl Adolf, Duke of Värmland (4 July 1798 in Stockholm – 10 July 1798 in Stockholm). Lived six days; buried at Riddarholmskyrkan (Riddarholm Church).[17]

With Augusta von Fersen, he had an extramarital son:

  1. Carl Löwenhielm 1772–1861[18]

Adopted sons:

  1. Charles August, Crown Prince of Sweden[19]
  2. Charles XIV John of Sweden[20]

Arms

Instrument of Government (1809)

History[edit]

For half a century, starting with the Instrument of Government (1719), often referred to as the Age of Liberty, Sweden had enjoyed parliamentary rule under the Riksdag of the Estates, but in 1772 that was ended by a coup d’état perpetrated by Gustav III: the Revolution of 1772. The coup enabled Gustav III to rule as an enlightened despot. Gustav III’s son, Gustav IV Adolf, succeeded him but proved a less charismatic ruler, and the change of sides of Russia in the Napoleonic wars prompted the disastrous Finnish War and the loss of Finland, settled in the Treaty of Fredrikshamn. This provided momentum for the Swedish nobility and other forces to depose the king and restore political power to the Estates.

The aged and childless brother of Gustav III, Charles XIII was made king in 1809, but he was a mere puppet in the hands of the Estates and the question of his successor had to be solved. The election, by the Riksdag of the Estates, of the French Marshal and Prince of Pontecorvo Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte in 1810, provided not only a successor, but also a vital regent and a new dynasty. The rights of Bernadotte’s successors to accede to the Swedish throne were codified in an amendment to the constitution in the form of the Act of Succession (1810).

Reforms[edit]

The Instrument of Government of 1809 replaced the Instrument of Government of 1772. It established a separation of powers between the executive branch (the king) and the legislative branch (the Riksdag of the Estates). The King and Riksdag possessed joint power over legislation (article 87, constitutional law in articles 81-86), while the Riksdag had sole power over the budget and state incomes and expenses (articles 57-77) including military burdens (article 73). While the king’s power was somewhat reduced compared to the enlightened absolutism of Gustav III, the new document enabled the king to take a more active role in politics than during the Age of Liberty.

Originally, ministers were politically responsible solely to the king, who appointed and dismissed them. However, they were legally responsible to the Riksdag and a special court (Riksrätten) according to a special statute and to law in general if they committed legal offences (articles 106 and 101-102).

As the Riksdag’s authority grew, it became increasingly difficult for a government to stay in office solely with the Crown’s support. This culminated in 1907, when a government was chosen that was dependent more on the confidence of the Riksdag than on that of the king. However, in 1914, when Gustaf V made a speech opposing the program of the incumbent liberal government, it resigned, and the king appointed a conservative government of civil servants responsible to him.

The liberals won a decisive victory in 1917, but Gustaf tried to appoint another conservative ministry. However, it could not garner nearly enough support in the Riksdag. It was now obvious that the king could no longer pick a government entirely of his choosing, nor could he keep it in office against the will of the Riksdag. Gustaf yielded and appointed a liberal-social democratic coalition that effectively arrogated most of the crown’s political powers to itself. At that time, it was definitively established that ministers were politically responsible (not just legally) to the Riksdag. From then on, while ministers were still formally appointed by the king, convention required him to ensure they had the support of a majority in the Riksdag and to act on his ministers’ advice. Although the Instrument’s statement that “the King alone shall govern the realm” (article 4) remained unchanged, it was understood that he was to exercise his powers through the ministers, who did most of the actual work of governing.

During the period when it was in force several important reforms took place without affecting its status. In 1866 the Four Estates were replaced by a bicameral parliament, and in 1876 the office of the Prime Minister of Sweden was introduced. In the early 20th century universal suffrage was introduced and the country became a de facto parliamentary monarchy. In 1970 the parliament was transformed from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral one.

In 1975, it was replaced by a new Instrument of Government, which stripped the king of even nominal political power and made Sweden a de facto crowned republic.

Charles XIV John of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte)

Jump to navigationJump to search

Charles XIV John
Carl XIV John of Sweden & Norway c 1840.jpg

Portrait by François Gérard
King of Sweden and Norway
Reign 5 February 1818 – 8 March 1844
Coronations 11 May 1818
(Stockholm Cathedral, Sweden)
7 September 1818
(Nidaros Cathedral, Norway)
Predecessor Charles XIII & II
Successor Oscar I
Prince of Pontecorvo
Reign 5 June 1806 – 21 August 1810
Predecessor Principality established
Successor Lucien Murat
Born Jean Bernadotte, later Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte
26 January 1763
Kingdom of France PauFrance
Died 8 March 1844 (aged 81)
StockholmSweden
Burial 26 April 1844

Spouse
Désirée Clary (m. 1798)
Issue Oscar I of Sweden
Full name
FrenchJean-Baptiste Jules
SwedishKarl Johan Baptist Julius
House Bernadotte
Father Henri Bernadotte
Mother Jeanne de Saint-Jean
Religion Lutheran
prev.Roman Catholic
Signature Charles XIV John's signature
Military career
Allegiance Kingdom of France
Flag of France (1790–1794).svg Kingdom of France
France French Republic
France French Empire
Years of service 1780–1810
Rank Marshal of the Empire
Commands held Governor of Hanover
Battles/wars French Revolutionary Wars
Napoleonic Wars
Awards Legion of Honour
Names inscribed under the Arc de Triomphe
Other work Minister of War
Councillor of State

Charles XIV John or Carl John, (Swedish and NorwegianKarl XIV Johan; born Jean Bernadotte[1]; 26 January 1763 – 8 March 1844) was King of Sweden (as Charles XIV John) and King of Norway (proclaimed as Charles XIV John, but in recent times referred to accurately in Norway as Charles III John) from 1818 until his death in 1844.

Born in Pau in southern France, Bernadotte joined the French Royal Army in 1780. Following the outbreak of the French Revolution, he exhibited great military talent, rapidly rising through the ranks and was made a brigadier general by 1794. He served with distinction in Italy and Germany, and was briefly Minister of War. His relationship with Napoleon was turbulent; nevertheless, Napoleon named him a Marshal of France on the proclamation of the French Empire. Bernadotte played a significant role in the French victory at Austerlitz, and was made Prince of Pontecorvo as a reward.

In 1810, Bernadotte was unexpectedly elected the heir-presumptive to the childless King Charles XIII of Sweden, thanks to the advocacy of Baron Carl Otto Mörner, a Swedish courtier and obscure member of the Riksdag of the Estates.[2] He assumed the name Charles John and became the de facto regent and head of state. In 1813, following a dispute over Swedish Pomerania, Crown Prince Charles John aligned Sweden with Napoleon’s enemies in the Sixth Coalition, contributing to a decisive French defeat at Leipzig. He went on to defeat Denmark and forced Norway into a union with Sweden.

Upon the death of Charles XIII in 1818, Charles John ascended to the throne as the first monarch from the House of Bernadotte. He presided over a period of peace and prosperity, and reigned until his death in 1844.

Category:Early Modern history of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Subcategories

This category has the following 7 subcategories, out of 7 total.

0–9

A

G

S

Historical suzerainties[edit]

The Ottoman Empire:

The Qing dynasty:

In Europe:

In Indonesia:

The Republic of Mexico:

Demographics

Population pyramid 2017

Swedes celebrating Midsummer (Swedish: Midsommar)

The total resident population of Sweden was 10,223,505 on 30 November 2018.[3] The population exceeded 10 million for the first time on friday 20 January 2017.[222][223] Every fourth (24,9%) resident in the country has immigrant background and every third (32,3%) has at least one of ones parents born abroad.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

Between 1820 and 1930, approximately 1.3 million Swedes, a third of the country’s population at the time, emigrated to North America, and most of them to the United States. There are more than 4.4 million Swedish Americans according to a 2006 US Census Bureau estimate.[225] In Canada, the community of Swedish ancestry is 330,000 strong.[226]

 

The Peculiar history of the Swedish State constitutionally and the arrangements made in the Social Contract when the US New Deal and British versions of the same were cast. The Swedes created a form of State monopoly Capitalism somewhat analogous to the Junkers and Prussian arrangements explained by John Catto.

 

This evolution lead with a flirtation described as Socialism or Democratic Socialism. It was in fact a FLirtation with National Socialism/StateMonopoly Capitalism a Flirtation which endures and is also the driving force behind the Eu.

Swedish emigration to the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Poster showing a cross-section of the Cunard Line‘s immigrant liner RMS Aquitania, launched in 1913.

Thirteen of the vast number of Swedish American pioneers

During the Swedish emigration to the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, about 1.3 million Swedes left Sweden for the United States of America. While the land of the U.S. frontier was a magnet for the rural poor all over Europe, some factors encouraged Swedish emigration in particular. The religious repression practiced by the Swedish Lutheran State Church was widely resented, as was the social conservatism and class snobbery of the Swedish monarchy. Population growth and crop failures made conditions in the Swedish countryside increasingly bleak. By contrast, reports from early Swedish emigrants painted the American Midwest as an earthly paradise, and praised American religious and political freedom and undreamed-of opportunities to better one’s condition.

Swedish migration to the United States peaked in the decades after the American Civil War (1861–65). By 1890 the U.S. census reported a Swedish-American population of nearly 800,000. Most immigrants became pioneers, clearing and cultivating the prairie, but some forces pushed the new immigrants towards the cities, particularly Chicago. Single young women usually went straight from agricultural work in the Swedish countryside to jobs as housemaids in American towns. Many established Swedish Americans visited the old country in the later 19th century, their narratives illustrating the difference in customs and manners. Some made the journey with the intention of spending their declining years in Sweden, but changed their minds when faced with what they thought an arrogant aristocracy, a coarse and degraded laboring class, and a lack of respect for women.

After a dip in the 1890s, emigration rose again, causing national alarm in Sweden. A broad-based parliamentary emigration commission was instituted in 1907. It recommended social and economic reform in order to reduce emigration by “bringing the best sides of America to Sweden.” The commission’s major proposals were rapidly implemented: universal male suffrage, better housing, general economic development, and broader popular education. The impact of these measures is hard to assess, as World War I (1914–18) broke out the year after the commission published its last volume, reducing emigration to a mere trickle. From the mid-1920s, there was no longer a Swedish mass emigration.

Real Politik and Brexit. Negotiations start tomorrow. #GrubStreetJournal @Wiki_Ballot from June 18, 2017

Selection_132.jpg

The Swedish Theory of Love, an everyday story from #Cuckland. #SwedishHypocrisy #SwedishStateMonopolyCronyCapitalism #SwedishEUMilitaryUnification #EUArmyNatoByBackDoor

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/the-swedish-theory-of-love-an-everyday-story-from-cuckland-swedishhypocrisy-swedishstatemonopolycronycapitalism-swedisheumilitaryunification-euarmynatobybackdoor/

 

Swedish riksdaler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Riksdaler)

Jump to navigationJump to search

An 8 daler piece of plate money (plåtmynt) in the British Museum.

The riksdaler (Swedish pronunciation: [rɪks¹dɑːlɛr]) was the name of a Swedish coin first minted in 1604. Between 1777 and 1873, it was the currency of Sweden. The daler, like the dollar,[1] was named after the German Thaler. The similarly named Reichsthalerrijksdaalder, and rigsdaler were used in Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, and Denmark-Norway, respectively. Riksdaler is still used as a colloquial term for Sweden’s modern-day currency.[2]

History[edit]

Penning accounting system[edit]

The daler was introduced in 1534. It was initially intended for international use and was divided into 4 marks and then a mark is further subdivided into 8 öres and then a öre is further subdivided into 24 pennings. In 1604, the name was changed to riksdaler (“daler of the realm“, c.f. Reichsthaler). In 1609, the riksdaler rose to a value of 6 mark when the other Swedish coins were debased but the riksdaler remained constant.

From 1624, daler were issued in copper as well as silver. Because of the low value of copper, large plate money (plåtmynt) was issued.[3] These were rectangular pieces of copper weighing, in some cases, several kilograms. (The largest one is worth 10 daler and weighs almost 20 kilograms (44 lb)). They circulated until 1776. As silver became scarce, the silver daler rose in value relative to the copper daler, with the exchange rate between the two eventually being set at a ratio of 3 to 1. Denominations in copper money were marked K.M. or KMT, with S.M. or SMT denoting silver money.

The cumbersome size and weight of plate money eventually prompted Sweden to become the first country in Europe to issue banknotes.[4] These were issued by Stockholms Banco in 1661.[5] The notes lost much of their value due to over production but succeeded in alleviating the immediate problem. They were issued until 1667. In 1681, the silver daler was debased,[citation needed] such that 1 riksdaler = 2 silver daler, with a further debasement in 1712 resulting in 1 riksdaler = 3 silver daler.

1

1994 Swedish European Union membership referendum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

A non-binding referendum on membership for the European Union was held in Sweden on 13 November 1994.[1]

The voter turnout was 83.3%, and the result was 52.3% for and 46.8% against.[1]

Result[edit]

Summary of
the referendum
Votes Percent
Yes 2,833,721 52.3
No 2,539,132 46.8
Blank votes 48,937 0.9
Total 5,421,790 100
Invalid votes 2,697
Eligible voters 6,510,055
Turnout 5,424,487 83.3

Sweden and the euro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Eurozone participation

European Union (EU) member states
 19 in the eurozone.
 7 not in ERM II, but obliged to join the eurozone on meeting convergence criteria (BulgariaCroatiaCzech RepublicHungaryPolandRomania, and Sweden).
 1 in ERM II, with an opt-out (Denmark).
 1 not in ERM II with an opt-out (United Kingdom).
Non-EU member states
 4 using the euro with a monetary agreement (AndorraMonacoSan Marino, and Vatican City).
 2 using the euro unilaterally (Kosovo[a] and Montenegro).

Sweden does not currently use the euro as its currency and has no plans to replace the krona in the near future. Sweden’s Treaty of Accession of 1994 made it subject to the Treaty of Maastricht, which obliges states to join the eurozone once they meet the necessary conditions.[1][2] Sweden maintains that joining the ERM II (a requirement for euro adoption) is voluntary,[3][4] and has chosen to remain outside pending public approval by a referendum, thereby intentionally avoiding the fulfilment of the adoption requirements.

1

Sweden during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Sweden’s location in Europe, 1942

 Sweden
 Areas under German occupation
 German allies, co-belligerents and puppet states
 Allied-held territories
 Other neutral territories

Sweden maintained its policy of neutrality during World War II. When the war began on September 1, 1939, the fate of Sweden was unclear. But by a combination of its geopolitical location in the Scandinavian Peninsula, successful realpolitik maneuvering during an unpredictable course of events, and a dedicated military build-up after 1942, Sweden succeeded in keeping its official neutrality status throughout the war.

At the outbreak of hostilities, Sweden had held a neutral stance in international relations for more than a century, since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815.[1] Twenty nations held a policy of neutrality in September 1939, but only eight other European nations found themselves capable, like Sweden, of officially maintaining this stance throughout the entire war; these were IrelandPortugal,[2] Spain,[3] AndorraLiechtensteinVatican CitySan Marino and Switzerland. The Swedish Government made a few concessions, and sometimes breached the nation’s neutrality in favor of both Germany and the Western Allies.

During the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Sweden allowed the Wehrmacht to use Swedish railways to transport (June–July 1941) the German 163rd Infantry Division along with howitzerstanks and anti-aircraft weapons and associated ammunition from Norway to Finland. German soldiers traveling on leave between Norway and Germany were allowed passage through Sweden—the so-called permittenttrafik. Iron ore was sold to Germany throughout the war. And for the Allies, Sweden shared military intelligence and helped to train soldiers made up of refugees from Denmark and Norway, to be used in the liberation of their home countries.[4][page needed] It also allowed the Allies to use Swedish airbases between 1944 and 1945.

Sweden also became a refuge for anti-fascist and Jewish refugees from all over the region. In 1943, following an order to deport all of Denmark’s Jewish population to concentration camps, nearly all of Denmark’s 8,000 Jews were brought to safety in Sweden. Sweden also became a refuge for Norwegian Jews who fled from German occupied Norway.[5]

Sweden and Nato,

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sweden+and+NATO&ia=web

 

Sweden[edit]

Six flags are held by a line of soldiers in camouflage as they stand in front of trees and a beige building.

Sweden has close relations with NATO and NATO members, and participates in training exercises like the Admiral Pitka Recon Challenge in Estonia.

In 1949 Sweden chose not to join NATO and declared a security policy aiming for non-alignment in peace and neutrality in war.[168] A modified version now qualifies non-alignment in peace for possible neutrality in war. This position was maintained without much discussion during the Cold War. Since the 1990s however there has been an active debate in Sweden on the question of NATO membership in the post–Cold War world.[169] These ideological divides were visible in November 2006 when Sweden could either buy two new transport planes or join NATO’s plane pool, and in December 2006, when Sweden was invited to join the NATO Response Force.[170][171] Sweden have been active participants in NATO-led missions in Bosnia (IFOR and SFOR), Kosovo (KFOR), Afghanistan (ISAF), and Libya (Operation Unified Protector).[172]

The ruling Swedish Social Democratic Party have remained in favour of neutrality and non-alignment.[173] This preference is shared by their partners, the Green Party, as well as the Left Party. The centre-right Moderate Party and the Liberal Party are the largest parties by current parliamentary representation in favor of NATO membership.[174] The 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea is credited with renewed public calls for NATO membership from notable politicians.[175][176] The Centre Party was opposed to NATO membership until September 2015, when party leadership under Annie Lööf announced that they would motion to change the party policy in order to push for Sweden to join NATO at their next party conference. The Christian Democrats, also previously opposed, likewise voted to support NATO membership at their party meeting on 9 October 2015.[177]

Polling has shown a rise in support for NATO membership among Swedes since 2008 according to Ipsos polling, going from 22 percent in May 2008 to 33 percent in January 2015,[178][179] with another from the SOM Institute in May 2015 showing similar numbers.[180] According to Svenska Dagbladet, support in 2011 was at 23 percent,[181] and has risen somewhat significantly to 41 percent in September 2015, when only 39 percent of respondents were opposed to NATO membership.[182] An October 2014 survey commissioned by TV4 News also showed slightly more respondents supporting membership than opposing it.[178] In 2014, news that a military expert in Sweden had calculated that the country could hold out for a week if attacked temporarily lifted support for NATO membership in polls.[183] A May 2017 poll by Pew showed that support for membership had risen to 47 percent.[184]

1

Anna Lindh[redigera | redigera wikitext]

Hoppa till navigeringHoppa till sök

Den här artikeln handlar om politikern. För friidrottaren, se Anna Lindh (friidrottare).
Ej att förväxla med Ann Linde.
Anna Lindh

Anna Lindh 2002.

Ämbetsperiod
7 oktober 199811 september 2003
Monark Carl XVI Gustaf
Statsminister Göran Persson
Företrädare Lena Hjelm-Wallén
Efterträdare Laila Freivalds

Ämbetsperiod
7 oktober 19947 oktober 1998
Monark Carl XVI Gustaf
Statsminister Ingvar Carlsson
Göran Persson
Företrädare Görel Thurdin
Efterträdare Kjell Larsson

Ämbetsperiod
1982–1985[1]
Valkrets Södermanlands län
Ämbetsperiod
1998–2003
Valkrets Södermanlands län

Född Ylva Anna Maria Lindh
19 juni 1957
Enskede församlingStockholm[2]
Död 11 september 2003 (46 år)
Karolinska UniversitetssjukhusetSolna
Politiskt parti Socialdemokraterna
Make Bo Holmberg (1991–2003)
Yrke Jurist

Ylva Anna Maria Lindh, född 19 juni 1957 i Enskede församling i Stockholm, död 11 september 2003 på Karolinska sjukhuset i Solna (då hemmahörande i Alla Helgona församling i Nyköping i Södermanlands län)[2], var en svensk politiker (socialdemokrat). Hon var riksdagsledamot 1982–1985 och 1998–2003, miljöminister 1994–1998 samt utrikesminister 1998–2003.

Lindh knivhöggs av Mijailo Mijailović den 10 september 2003 på varuhuset NK i centrala Stockholm och avled morgonen den 11 september på Karolinska sjukhuset. Vid tiden för dådet arbetade hon med folkomröstningen om införande av euro som valuta.

Anna Lindh sågs som en av de främsta kandidaterna att efterträda Göran Persson som partiledare för socialdemokraterna. Hennes största engagemang gällde internationella samarbets- och solidaritetsfrågor samt miljöfrågor. Med dessa frågor arbetade hon hela sin karriär och var de sista fem åren av sitt liv Sveriges utrikesminister.

1

Assassination[edit]

On 16:00 10 September 2003, while shopping in the ladies’ section of the Nordiska Kompaniet department store in central Stockholm for a televised debate later that night on the referendum about Sweden‘s adoption of the euro, Lindh was stabbed in the chest, abdomen and arms. At the time, she was not protected by bodyguards from the Swedish Security Service; this proved controversial, given the similarity between Lindh’s murder and that of Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986 (the first murder of a government member in modern Swedish history).[3]

She was rushed to Karolinska University Hospital, where she underwent surgery and blood transfusions for over nine hours. Lindh reportedly experienced severe internal bleeding and liver damage; her condition remained grave, although she appeared to have improved immediately after the surgery. An hour later, however, complications necessitated additional surgery; at 05:29 on 11 September 2003, she was pronounced dead. After a private briefing of her relatives and the government (and contradicting news coverage that she was alive in “grave” but “stable” condition), the announcement of her death made headlines across the European Union.[4]

Criminal investigation[edit]

The murderer escaped after the crime; according to eyewitness accounts, his actions appeared deliberate and systematic. A phone number was set up for anyone who might know anything about the crime, and a massive manhunt (centred on Stockholm) was launched in Sweden. After two days a photo of a man believed to be the murderer, taken by a camera on a floor above the murder scene, was released by police. Several items (pieces of clothing and a knife) believed to be connected with the murder were found outside the department store near a Stockholm metro station. At the crime scene, police obtained a handprint believed to be the killer’s. Images of the suspect from the store’s surveillance system were published on 13 and 14 September.

A man was apprehended on 16 September and detained as a suspect on “justifiable grounds” (the lowest level of suspicion), but was cleared of all charges and released. On 24 September, the police announced that a suspect, Mijailo Mijailović (born in Sweden to Serb parents), had been apprehended and arrested at a higher level of suspicion: “probable cause“. On 25 September, it was announced that Mijailović’s DNA profile matched that of hairs on a baseball cap left at (or near) the scene of the crime, and he resembled the man filmed in the store where Lindh was attacked.

After denying all involvement Mijailović confessed to the crime on 6 January 2004, providing a full account of the events of 10 September in an extra session of police questioning requested by Peter Althin (Mijailović’s counsel). He was found guilty in a trial held from 14 to 17 January, and after a psychiatric evaluation was sentenced to life imprisonment on 23 March. On 8 July, an appeals court overturned Mijailović’s sentence (after tests concluded he was mentally ill at the time of the murder), and Mijailović was transferred to a secure psychiatric ward. Prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden, which reinstated his sentence to life imprisonment on 2 December of that year. Mijailović renounced his Swedish citizenship, and has unsuccessfully requested to be transferred to Serbia.

Despite Lindh’s popularity and the timing of the assassination, the murder was not considered a political act (although a newspaper found a picture of Mijailović listening to Liberal People’s Party leader Lars Leijonborg in clothing similar to what he wore during the murder). Mijailović admitted that he found the speech “entertaining”, but denied allegations that it influenced his actions.[5] In a 2011 interview with the newspaper Expressen, Mijailović said he had “felt hatred of [all] politicians” at the time, he had been high on a hypnotic drug at the time, and it was “a coincidence” that his victim had been Lindh.[6] Mijailović has received counselling and other support services since his imprisonment.

Modernization of Sweden: 1860–1910[edit]

Two golden 20 kr coins from the Scandinavian Monetary Union, which was based on a gold standard. The coin to the left is Swedish and the right one is Danish.

Sweden, much like Japan at the same time, transformed from a stagnant rural society to a vibrant industrial society between the 1860s and 1910. The agricultural economy shifted gradually from communal village to a more efficient private farm-based agriculture. There was less need for manual labor on the farm so many went to the cities, and a million Swedes emigrated to the United States between 1850 and 1890. Many returned and brought word of the higher productivity of American industry, thus stimulating faster modernization.

In 1873, Sweden and Denmark formed the Scandinavian Monetary Union.

The late 19th century saw the emergence of an opposition press, the abolition of guild monopolies on craftsmen and the reform of taxation. Two years of military service was made compulsory for young men although there was no warfare.

Health[edit]

The steady decline of death rates in Sweden began about 1810. For men and women of working age the death rate trend diverged, however, leading to increased excess male mortality during the first half of the century. There were very high rates of infant and child mortality before 1800. Among infants and children between the ages of one and four, smallpox peaked as a cause of death in the 1770–1780s and declined afterward. Mortality also peaked during this period due to other air-, food-, and waterborne diseases, but these declined as well during the early 19th century. The decline of several diseases during this time created a more favorable environment that increased children’s resistance to disease and dramatically lowered child mortality.[14]

The introduction of compulsory gymnastics in Swedish schools in 1880 rested partly on a long tradition, from Renaissance humanism to the Enlightenment, of the importance of physical as well as intellectual training. More immediately, the promotion of gymnastics as a scientifically sound form of physical discipline coincided with the introduction of conscription, which gave the state a strong interest in educating children physically as well as mentally for the role of citizen soldiers.[15] Skiing is a major recreation in Sweden and its ideological, functional, ecological, and social impact has been great on Swedish nationalism and consciousness. Swedes perceived skiing as virtuous, masculine, heroic, in harmony with nature, and part of the country’s culture. A growing awareness of strong national sentiments and an appreciation of natural resources led to the creation of the Swedish Ski Association in 1892 in order to combine nature, leisure, and nationalism. The organization focused its efforts on patriotic, militaristic, heroic, and environmental Swedish traditions as they relate to ski sports and outdoor life.[16]

20th century[edit]

With a broader voting franchise, the nation saw the emergence of three major party groups – Social DemocratLiberal, and Conservative. The parties debated further expansion of the voting franchise. The Liberal Party, based on the middle class, in 1907 put forth a program for local voting rights later accepted in the Riksdag; the majority of Liberals wanted to require some property ownership before a man could vote. The Social Democrats called for total male suffrage without property limitations. The strong farmer representation in the Second Chamber of the Riksdag maintained a conservative view, but their decline after 1900 gradually ended opposition to full suffrage.

Religion maintained a major role but public school religious education changed from drill in the Lutheran catechism to biblical-ethical studies.

Main Line railways built 1860–1930.

Sweden in World War I[edit]

Sweden was neutral in World War I, although the Swedish government was sympathetic to both sides at different times during the conflict, even briefly occupying the Åland islands jointly with the Germans. At first the Swedish government flirted with the possibility of changing their neutral stance to side with the Central Powers, and made concessions to them including mining the Öresund straits to close them to Allied warships wishing to enter the Baltic. Later the Swedish signed agreements allowing trade with the Allied powers and limiting trade with Central Powers, though this brought about the fall of the government of Hjalmar Hammarskjöld.

Industrialization: 1910–1939[edit]

During the First World War and the 1920s, its industries expanded to meet the European demand for Swedish steel, ball bearings, wood pulp, and matches. Post-war prosperity provided the foundations for the social welfare policies characteristic of modern Sweden.

Foreign policy concerns in the 1930s centered on Soviet and German expansionism, which stimulated abortive efforts at Nordic defence co-operation. Sweden followed a policy of armed neutrality during World War II and currently remains non-aligned.

Welfare state[edit]

Sweden created a successful model of social democracy because of the unique way in which Sweden’s labor leaders, politicians, and classes cooperated during the early development period of Swedish democracy. Because Sweden’s socialist leaders chose a moderate, reformist political course with broad-based public support in the early stages of Swedish industrialization and prior to the full-blown development of Swedish interclass politics, Sweden escaped the severe extremist challenges and political and class divisions that plagued many European countries that attempted to develop social democratic systems after 1911. By dealing early, cooperatively, and effectively with the challenges of industrialization and its impact on Swedish social, political, and economic structures, Swedish social democrats were able to create one of the most successful social democratic systems in the world, including both a welfare state and extensive protections of civil liberties.[17]

When the Social Democratic Party came into power in 1932, its leaders introduced a new political decision-making process, which later became known as “the Swedish model” or the Folkhemmet (The People’s Home).[18] The party took a central role, but tried as far as possible to base its policy on mutual understanding and compromise.[citation needed] Different interest groups were always involved in official committees that preceded government decisions.

Foreign policy 1920–1939[edit]

The Royal Swedish Opera (1934)

Foreign policy concerns in the 1930s centered on Soviet and German expansionism, which stimulated failed efforts at Nordic defense cooperation. Sweden followed a policy of armed neutrality during World War II (although thousands of Swedish volunteers fought in the Winter War against the Soviets); however, it did permit German troops to pass through its territory to and from occupation duties in its neighbour, Norway, and it supplied the Nazi regime with steel and much needed ball-bearings.

Sweden during World War II[edit]

Sweden remained neutral during World War II, avoiding the fate of occupied Norway. A key event came with the German invasion of Russia in June 1941: Germany demanded transit through Swedish-held territories and the use of Swedish railroads. Sweden agreed.[19]

The dominant historiography for decades after the war ignored the Holocaust and used what it called the “small state realist” argument. It held that that neutrality and co-operation with Germany were necessary for survival since Germany was vastly more powerful, concessions were limited and were only made where the threat was too great; neutrality was bent but not broken; national unity was paramount; and in any case, Sweden had the neutral right to trade with Germany. Germany needed Swedish iron, and Sweden had nothing to gain and much iron to lose by an invasion.[20] The nation was run by a national unity government, which included all major parties in the Riksdag. Its key leaders included Prime Minister Per Albin HanssonKing Gustav V, and Foreign Minister Christian Günther.

Humanitarian aid to Jews facing the Holocaust was the mission of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. As the secretary of the 1944 Swedish delegation to Hungary, to co-ordinate humanitarian relief for the Jews of Europe during the Jewish Holocaust. He helped to rescue tens of thousands of Jews in Nazi-occupied Hungary in late 1944. He disappeared in January 1945, and probably died in a Soviet prison in 1947.[21]

Post-war Sweden: 1945[edit]

Sweden was one of the first non-participants of World War II to join the United Nations (in 1946).[22] Apart from this, the country tried to stay out of alliances and remained officially neutral during the entire Cold War; it never joined NATO.

The social democratic party held government for 44 years (1932–1976), they spent much of the 1950s and 1960s building Folkhemmet (The People’s Home), the Swedish welfare state[23] Sweden’s industry had not been damaged by the war and it was in a position to help re-build Northern Europe in the decades following 1945. This led to an economic upswing in the post-war era that made the welfare system feasible.[24]

By the 1970s, the economies of the rest of Western Europe, particularly that of West Germany were prosperous and growing rapidly, while the Swedish economy stagnated. Many economists blamed its large tax funded public sector.[25]

In 1976, the social democrats lost their majority. The 1976 parliamentary elections brought a liberal/right-wing coalition to power. Over the next six years, four governments ruled and fell, composed by all or some of the parties that had won in 1976. The fourth liberal government in these years came under fire by Social Democrats and trade unions and the Moderate Party, culminating in the Social Democrats regaining power in 1982.

During the Cold War Sweden maintained a dual approach, publicly the strict neutrality policy was forcefully maintained, but unofficially strong ties were kept with the U.S., Norway, Denmark, West Germany and other NATO countries. Swedes hoped that the U.S. would use conventional and nuclear weapons in case of a Soviet attack on Sweden. A strong ability to defend against an amphibious invasion was maintained, complete with Swedish-built warplanes, but there was no long-range bombing capability.[26]

In the early 1960s, U.S. nuclear submarines armed with mid-range Polaris A-1 nuclear missiles were deployed not far from the Swedish west coast. Range and safety considerations made this a good area from which to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on Moscow. The U.S. secretly provided Sweden with a military security guarantee, promising to provide military force in aid of Sweden in case of Soviet aggression. As part of the military cooperation, the U.S. provided much help in the development of the Saab 37 Viggen, as a strong Swedish air force was seen as necessary to keep Soviet anti-submarine aircraft from operating in the missile launch area. In return, Swedish scientists at the Royal Institute of Technology made considerable contributions to enhancing the targeting performance of the Polaris missiles.[27]

On February 28, 1986, the Social Democratic leader and Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was murdered; shocked Swedes worried whether the nation had “lost its innocence”.

In the early 1990s, there occurred once again an economic crisis with high unemployment and many banks and companies going bankrupt. In 1995, a few years after the end of the Cold War, Sweden became a member of the European Union and the old term “policy of neutrality” fell out of use.[28][29]

In a referendum held in 2003, the majority voted not to adopt the Euro as the country’s official currency.

Historiography[edit]

According to Lönnroth (1998)[30] in the 19th century and early 20th century, Swedish historians saw their writing in terms of literature and story telling, rather than analysis and interpretation. Harald Hjärne (1848–1922) pioneered modern historical scholarship. In 1876, he attacked the traditional myths of the social and legal conditions of ancient Greece and Rome inherited from the classical authors. He was inspired by German scholar Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776–1831), a founder of modern German historiography. As professor of history at Uppsala University, Hjärne became a spokesman for the Conservative Party and the Swedish monarchy by 1900. Hjärne had enormous influence on his students and, indeed, on an entire generation of historians, who mostly became political conservatives and nationalists. Another movement emerged at Lund University around 1910, where critical scholars began using the source critics’ methods to the early history of Scandinavia. The brothers Lauritz Weibull and Curt Weibull were the leaders, and they had followers at Lund and Göteborg universities. The result was a half-century of often embittered controversy between traditionalists and revisionists that lasted until 1960. There was a blurring of the ideological fronts resulting from experiences during and after World War II. In the meantime, in the general expansion of university education in the postwar period, history was generally neglected. Only through the activities of the National Research Council of the Humanities and the dedicated efforts of certain ambitious university professors created some expansion of historical scholarship. After 1990, there were signs of revival in historiography, with a strong new emphasis on 20th-century topics, as well as the application of social history and computerized statistical techniques to the demographic history of ordinary villagers before 1900.[31]

7 thoughts on “EU/UN Feudalism, what feudalism under the new EUssrRegime Looks Like. Evolution of the Swedish Constitution, Brino , Brexit. Sweden the 4th Reich and The EUsssr and the 5th Reich.

  1. Diocletian
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    For the band, see Diocletian (band).
    Diocletian
    Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire
    Istanbul – Museo archeol. – Diocleziano (284-305 d.C.) – Foto G. Dall’Orto 28-5-2006.jpg
    Laureate head of Diocletian
    Emperor of the Roman Empire
    Reign 20 November 284 – 1 April 286 (in competition with Carinus until July 285)[1]
    Predecessor Carinus
    Reign 1 April 286 – 1 May 305 (as Senior Augustus, ruled in the east)[2]
    Successor Constantius Chlorus and Galerius
    Co-emperor Maximian (Western Emperor)
    Born c. 22 December 244[3]
    Salona (now Solin, Croatia)
    Died 3 December 311 (age 66)[4]
    Aspalathos (now Split, Croatia)
    Burial Diocletian’s Palace in Aspalathos. His tomb was later turned into a Christian church, the Cathedral of St. Domnius, which is still standing within the palace at Split.
    Spouse Prisca
    Issue Valeria
    Full name
    Diocles
    Regnal name
    Imperator Caesar Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus[5]
    Diocletian (/ˌdaɪ.əˈkliːʃən/; Latin: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus), born Diocles (22 December 244 – 3 December 311),[4][6] was a Roman emperor from 284 to 305. Born to a family of low status in Dalmatia, Diocletian rose through the ranks of the military to become Roman cavalry commander to the Emperor Carus. After the deaths of Carus and his son Numerian on campaign in Persia, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor. The title was also claimed by Carus’ surviving son, Carinus, but Diocletian defeated him in the Battle of the Margus.

    Diocletian’s reign stabilized the empire and marks the end of the Crisis of the Third Century. He appointed fellow officer Maximian as Augustus, co-emperor, in 286. Diocletian reigned in the Eastern Empire, and Maximian reigned in the Western Empire. Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as Caesars, junior co-emperors, under himself and Maximian respectively. Under this ‘tetrarchy’, or “rule of four”, each emperor would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the empire’s borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatians and Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298. Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Sassanid Persia, the empire’s traditional enemy. In 299 he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon. Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favourable peace.

    Diocletian separated and enlarged the empire’s civil and military services and reorganized the empire’s provincial divisions, establishing the largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire. He established new administrative centres in Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Sirmium, and Trevorum, closer to the empire’s frontiers than the traditional capital at Rome. Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, he styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the empire’s masses with imposing forms of court ceremonies and architecture. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state’s expenditures and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform. From at least 297 on, imperial taxation was standardized, made more equitable, and levied at generally higher rates.

    Not all of Diocletian’s plans were successful: the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), his attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was counterproductive and quickly ignored. Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian’s tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively. The Diocletianic Persecution (303–312), the empire’s last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, failed to eliminate Christianity in the empire; indeed, after 324, Christianity became the empire’s preferred religion under Constantine. Despite these failures and challenges, Diocletian’s reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the empire economically and militarily, enabling the empire to remain essentially intact for another 150 years despite being near the brink of collapse in Diocletian’s youth. Weakened by illness, Diocletian left the imperial office on 1 May 305, and became the first Roman emperor to abdicate the position voluntarily. He lived out his retirement in his palace on the Dalmatian coast, tending to his vegetable gardens. His palace eventually became the core of the modern-day city of Split in Croatia.

    Like

  2. Economic
    Taxation
    In the early empire (30 BC – AD 235) the Roman government paid for what it needed in gold and silver. The coinage was stable. Requisition, forced purchase, was used to supply armies on the march. During the third century crisis (235–285), the government resorted to requisition rather than payment in debased coinage, since it could never be sure of the value of money. Requisition was nothing more or less than seizure. Diocletian made requisition into tax. He introduced an extensive new tax system based on heads (capita) and land (iugera) – with one iugerum equal to approximately .65 acres – and tied to a new, regular census of the empire’s population and wealth. Census officials traveled throughout the empire, assessed the value of labor and land for each landowner, and joined the landowners’ totals together to make citywide totals of capita and iuga.[271] The iugum was not a consistent measure of land, but varied according to the type of land and crop, and the amount of labor necessary for sustenance. The caput was not consistent either: women, for instance, were often valued at half a caput, and sometimes at other values.[270] Cities provided animals, money, and manpower in proportion to its capita, and grain in proportion to its iuga.[271][Note 13]

    Most taxes were due on each year on 1 September, and levied from individual landowners by decuriones (decurions). These decurions, analogous to city councilors, were responsible for paying from their own pocket what they failed to collect.[273] Diocletian’s reforms also increased the number of financial officials in the provinces: more rationales and magistri privatae are attested under Diocletian’s reign than before. These officials represented the interests of the fisc, which collected taxes in gold, and the Imperial properties.[229] Fluctuations in the value of the currency made collection of taxes in kind the norm, although these could be converted into coin. Rates shifted to take inflation into account.[271] In 296, Diocletian issued an edict reforming census procedures. This edict introduced a general five-year census for the whole empire, replacing prior censuses that had operated at different speeds throughout the empire. The new censuses would keep up with changes in the values of capita and iuga.[274]

    Italy, which had long been exempt from taxes, was included in the tax system from 290/291 as a diocesis.[275] The city of Rome itself, however, remained exempt; the “regions” (i.e., provinces) South of Rome (generally called “suburbicarian”, as opposed to the Northern, “annonaria” region) seem to have been relatively less taxed, in what probably was a sop offered to the great senatorial families and their landed properties.[276]

    Diocletian’s edicts emphasized the common liability of all taxpayers. Public records of all taxes were made public.[277] The position of decurion, member of the city council, had been an honor sought by wealthy aristocrats and the middle classes who displayed their wealth by paying for city amenities and public works. Decurions were made liable for any shortfall in the amount of tax collected. Many tried to find ways to escape the obligation.[273] By 300, civilians across the empire complained that there were more tax collectors than there were people to pay taxes.[278]

    Currency and inflation

    A fragment of the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), on display in Berlin

    Part of the prices edict in Greek in its original area built into a medieval church, Geraki, Greece
    Aurelian’s attempt to reform the currency had failed; the denarius was dead.[279] Diocletian restored the three-metal coinage and issued better quality pieces.[280] The new system consisted of five coins: the aureus/solidus, a gold coin weighing, like its predecessors, one-sixtieth of a pound; the argenteus, a coin weighing one ninety-sixth of a pound and containing ninety-five percent pure silver; the follis, sometimes referred to as the laureatus A, which is a copper coin with added silver struck at the rate of thirty-two to the pound; the radiatus, a small copper coin struck at the rate of 108 to the pound, with no added silver; and a coin known today as the laureatus B, a smaller copper coin struck at the rate of 192 to the pound.[281][Note 14] Since the nominal values of these new issues were lower than their intrinsic worth as metals, the state was minting these coins at a loss. This practice could be sustained only by requisitioning precious metals from private citizens in exchange for state-minted coin (of a far lower value than the price of the precious metals requisitioned).[282]

    By 301, however, the system was in trouble, strained by a new bout of inflation. Diocletian therefore issued his Edict on Coinage, an act re-tariffing all debts so that the nummus, the most common coin in circulation, would be worth half as much.[283] In the edict, preserved in an inscription from the city of Aphrodisias in Caria (near Geyre, Turkey), it was declared that all debts contracted before 1 September 301 must be repaid at the old standards, while all debts contracted after that date would be repaid at the new standards.[284] It appears that the edict was made in an attempt to preserve the current price of gold and to keep the Empire’s coinage on silver, Rome’s traditional metal currency.[285] This edict risked giving further momentum to inflationary trends, as had happened after Aurelian’s currency reforms. The government’s response was to issue a price freeze.[286]

    The Edict on Maximum Prices (Edictum De Pretiis Rerum Venalium) was issued two to three months after the coinage edict,[279] somewhere between 20 November and 10 December 301.[284] The best-preserved Latin inscription surviving from the Greek East,[287] the edict survives in many versions, on materials as varied as wood, papyrus, and stone.[288] In the edict, Diocletian declared that the current pricing crisis resulted from the unchecked greed of merchants, and had resulted in turmoil for the mass of common citizens. The language of the edict calls on the people’s memory of their benevolent leaders, and exhorts them to enforce the provisions of the edict, and thereby restore perfection to the world. The edict goes on to list in detail over one thousand goods and accompanying retail prices not to be exceeded. Penalties are laid out for various pricing transgressions.[289]

    In the most basic terms, the edict was ignorant of the law of supply and demand: it ignored the fact that prices might vary from region to region according to product availability, and it ignored the impact of transportation costs in the retail price of goods. In the judgment of the historian David Potter, the edict was “an act of economic lunacy”.[290] The fact that the edict began with a long rhetorical preamble betrays at the same time a moralizing stance as well as a weak grasp of economics – perhaps simply the wishful thinking that criminalizing a practice was enough to stop it.[291]

    There is no consensus about how effectively the edict was enforced.[292] Supposedly, inflation, speculation, and monetary instability continued, and a black market arose to trade in goods forced out of official markets.[293] The edict’s penalties were applied unevenly across the empire (some scholars believe they were applied only in Diocletian’s domains),[294] widely resisted, and eventually dropped, perhaps within a year of the edict’s issue.[295] Lactantius has written of the perverse accompaniments to the edict; of goods withdrawn from the market, of brawls over minute variations in price, of the deaths that came when its provisions were enforced. His account may be true, but it seems to modern historians exaggerated and hyperbolic,[296] and the impact of the law is recorded in no other ancient source.[297]

    Social and professional mobility
    Partly in response to economic pressures and in order to protect the vital functions of the state, Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armourers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary.[298] Soldiers’ children were also forcibly enrolled, something that followed spontaneous tendencies among the rank-and-file, but also expressed increasing difficulties in recruitment.[299]

    Like

  3. House of Bernadotte
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Bernadotte dynasty)
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    House of Bernadotte
    Arms of Bernadotte.svg
    Arms of Bernadotte
    Country Sweden, Norway
    Founded 1818; 201 years ago
    Founder Charles XIV John
    Current head Carl XVI Gustaf
    Final ruler Norway: Oscar II
    Titles
    King of Sweden
    “By the Grace of God King of the Swedes, the Goths and the Wends” (used until 1973)

    King of Norway (1818–1905)
    “By the Grace of God King of Norway”
    Estate(s) Sweden, Norway
    Deposition Norway: 1905 Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden
    The House of Bernadotte[a] is the royal house of Sweden, which has reigned since 1818. Between 1818 and 1905, it was also the royal house of Norway. Its founder Charles XIV John of Sweden, born a Frenchman as Jean Bernadotte, was adopted by the elderly King Charles XIII of Sweden, who had no other heir and whose Holstein-Gottorp branch of the House of Oldenburg thus was soon to be extinct.

    Contents
    1 History of the Royal House
    1.1 Bernadotte
    2 French origins
    3 Kings of Sweden
    4 Kings of Norway
    5 Entire royal house
    6 See also
    7 Notes
    8 References
    9 External links
    History of the Royal House
    Following the conclusion of Finnish War in 1809, Sweden lost possession of Finland, which had constituted roughly the eastern half of the Swedish realm for centuries. Resentment towards King Gustav IV Adolf precipitated an abrupt coup d’état. Gustav Adolf (and his son Gustav) was deposed and his uncle Charles XIII was elected King in his place. However, Charles XIII was 61 years old and prematurely senile. He was also childless; one child had been stillborn and another died after less than a week. It was apparent almost as soon as Charles XIII ascended the throne that the Swedish branch of the House of Holstein-Gottorp would die with him. In 1810 the Riksdag of the Estates, the Swedish parliament, elected a Danish prince, Prince Christian August of Augustenborg, as heir-presumptive to the throne. He took the name Charles August, but died later that same year.

    Like

  4. Eighty Years’ War
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    This article is about the war. For the historical context of the war, see Dutch Revolt.
    Eighty Years’ War
    Dutch War of Independence
    Veen01.jpg
    Relief of Leiden after the siege, 1574
    Date 1568–1648
    Location
    The Low Countries
    (worldwide colonial warfare)
    Result
    Peace of Münster

    Spain recognises the independence of the Dutch Republic
    Spain retains the Southern Netherlands
    Creation of the Dutch colonial empire
    Belligerents
    United Provinces
    England
    Scotland[a]
    France
    Spain Spain
    Portugal Portugal[b]
    Commanders and leaders
    Dutch Republic William the Silent †
    Dutch Republic Maurice of Orange
    Dutch Republic Frederick Henry
    Kingdom of England Elizabeth I
    Kingdom of England Robert Dudley
    Kingdom of EnglandKingdom of Scotland James VI and I
    Kingdom of EnglandKingdom of Scotland Charles I Stuart
    Kingdom of EnglandDutch Republic Roger Williams
    Spain Philip II
    Spain Philip III
    Spain Philip IV
    Casualties and losses
    c. 100,000 Dutch killed[1] (1568–1609) Unknown
    vte
    Dutch Revolt
    (Eighty Years’ War)
    The Eighty Years’ War (Dutch: Tachtigjarige Oorlog; Spanish: Guerra de los Ochenta Años) or Dutch War of Independence (1568–1648)[2] was a revolt of the Seventeen Provinces of what are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg against Philip II of Spain, the sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands. After the initial stages, Philip II deployed his armies and regained control over most of the rebelling provinces. Under the leadership of the exiled William the Silent, the northern provinces continued their resistance. They eventually were able to oust the Habsburg armies, and in 1581 they established the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. The war continued in other areas, although the heartland of the republic was no longer threatened. This included the origins of the Dutch colonial empire, which began with Dutch attacks on Portugal’s overseas territories, which at the time was conceived as carrying overseas the war with Spain due to Portugal being in a dynastic union with Spain. The Dutch Republic was recognized by Spain and the major European powers in 1609 at the start of the Twelve Years’ Truce. Hostilities broke out again around 1619, as part of the broader Thirty Years’ War. An end was reached in 1648 with the Peace of Münster (a treaty part of the Peace of Westphalia), when the Dutch Republic was definitively recognised as an independent country no longer part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Peace of Münster is sometimes considered the beginning of the Dutch Golden Age.

    Like

  5. Acts of Union 1800
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    Act of Union (Ireland) 1800

    Parliament of Ireland
    Long title An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland
    Citation 40 Geo. 3 c.38
    Introduced by John Toler[1]
    Dates
    Commencement 1 January 1801
    Status: Amended
    Revised text of statute as amended
    Constitutional documents of the UK
    Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
    vte
    The Acts of Union 1800 (sometimes referred to as a single Act of Union 1801) were parallel acts of the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland which united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (previously in personal union) to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The acts came into force on 1 January 1801, and the merged Parliament of the United Kingdom had its first meeting on 22 January 1801.

    Both acts remain in force, with amendments, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[2] and have been repealed in the Republic of Ireland.[3]

    Contents
    1 Name
    2 Background
    3 Passing the Acts
    4 Provisions
    4.1 The first parliament
    5 Union flag
    6 References
    6.1 Sources
    6.2 Citations
    7 Further reading
    8 External links

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.