Why did a united Scandinavia not form?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Colon
If Sweden lost its great power status because of one battle it never really deserved to be considered a great power in the first place.

That was frequently all it ever took for many countries. Hungary was a great power until Mohacs. The Ottoman Empire was a great power until the 1683 battle of Vienna.

[Colonâ„¢]

I'm uite sure the Ottoman Empire remained a great power well after 1683, even if the shine had come off and decline had set in. For instance, a country like France got its head hammered many, many times during history, but that didn't stop neither its ascend, nor from remaining a first grade power until it got overshadowed by the USSR and the US.
What makes great powers great is that they can lose battles, and even wars, but that they just keep on bouncing back. That wasn't the case with Sweden.

[chequita guevara]

The Ottoman Empire didn't bounce back, and the only reason they defeated Peter the Great was because he led his army into an unsuppliable spot and the Ottomans just starved them out. Except for that war, and another in which the Austrians were distracted, the Ottomans never won another war without the aid of other countries. Hell, they couldn't even defeat their own vassal, Egypt.

[Colonâ„¢]

Don't forget the Ottoman Empire had been on the main stage for 2 centuries already. Doubt you can say the same of Sweden. And in fact, 1683 was the bounce back since decline had already set in previously.

[chequita guevara]

Sweden was a major regional power for about two centuries also. It wasn't that they were on a house of cards, but that other countries like Great Britain, France, and Russia just got so much more powerful, while Sweden stayed the same.

While decline's do take time, it sometimes is just one battle that knocks a country out or sets the decline in motion. Hungary had suffered two devastating defeats at the hands of the Ottomans in the 14th and 15th Centuries, but even by the late 15th Century, it was still considered a great power. Up until Mohacs, Croatia and Bohemia were in dynastic union with it, and had Lajos waited for his Bohemian contingents to arive (or had he simply renewed the treaty his father signed with the previous sultan) Hungary likely wouldn't have been destroyed. In one day, Hungary went from great power to basket case.

As for the Ottomans themselves, it was after 1683 that they began to be refered to as "the sick man of Europe." They were considered a great power before that, but not after. Had Kemal Mustafa not been a total idiot, that might not have been the case.

[Colonâ„¢]

This discussion began when Ollie claimed that due to a lost battle Sweden lost its great power status, that's something different from regional power, isn't it?

The Ottoman power had already been weakened by numerous wars with its neighbours, the loss of its technological edge and domestic instability. 1683 may have caused the perception to shift but it wasn't the fundamental cause of its decline.
And the thing is that you are talking about perception of power, while I'm talking about material strength and its durability.

[chequita guevara]

It wasn't just the perception of power. The loss at Vienna was devastating and the Ottomans never recovered. While they were technologically behind, a standard defense would have prevented the destruction of the Ottoman army and a huge mass of its war material from falling into Christian hands. They might have lost, both they wouldn't have been decisively defeated.

I wouldn't argue that the Swedes were a great power after the Nothern War, but before that I think you can make that claim.

[RGBVideo]

A very odd line of reasoning there, Colon - was Nazi Germany never a great power since Stalingrad was only a single battle?

[chequita guevara]

Stalingrad didn't break the Nazis. Not like, say, the Battle of the Ardenes broke France.

[RGBVideo]

Stalingrad didn't break the Nazis.

Neither did the battle of Poltava break the Swedes in the great northern war -- but both were turning points in wars which ended up destroying the great power -status of the losers.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It wasn't just the perception of power. The loss at Vienna was devastating and the Ottomans never recovered. While they were technologically behind, a standard defense would have prevented the destruction of the Ottoman army and a huge mass of its war material from falling into Christian hands. They might have lost, both they wouldn't have been decisively defeated.

I wouldn't argue that the Swedes were a great power after the Nothern War, but before that I think you can make that claim.

The Ottomans already were in decline before 1683... a victory would not have prevented the constant wars that had already weakened the empire, nor would it have prevented technological edge countries like France or England were gaining. A victory may at most have meant a temporary reprieve from its decline.

Compare to France after the Napoleonic wars. It had suffered a crushing defeat, and yet it remained a great power, if not as great as previously. Or compare to Rome's defeats against Hannibal: it lost battle after battle, yet it kept on raising armies and eventually it defeated Carthage.

Sweden was a country that managed to exert a great deal of influence over a region due the use of mercenaries and skilled leadership, at a time that region was a focal point of Europe's conflicts. That was a very respectable achievement but it does not alter the fact it remained a poor, thinly populated country and that it was punching above its weight.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by VJ
A very odd line of reasoning there, Colon - was Nazi Germany never a great power since Stalingrad was only a single battle?

Where did you see me arguing something like that?

[RGBVideo]

Your original argument:

Originally posted by Colon
If Sweden lost its great power status because of one battle it never really deserved to be considered a great power in the first place.

[Colonâ„¢]

I don't see the connection between your interpretation and my statement.

[Chemical Ollie]

Sweden didn't lose the empire at Poltava, but it was the start of a long slipping slope that eventually led to the loss of Finland 100 years later.

But we could still bite. While the king was licking his wounds in Turkey, Field Marshal Magnus Stenbock rasied a new army and kicked the Danes back into Öresund at the battle of Helsingborg.