Talk:Scanian War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force

Denmark Mid‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway Mid‑importance

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Holy Roman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
	This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Scanian War was copied or moved into Denmark–Sweden relations with this edit on 2011-01-09. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Question

The Scanian War is supposedly linked to the Franco-Dutch War, but is not mentioned in that article. What does the Danish invasion of Scania have to do with that particular war? Could somebody shed some light on this?--The Minister of War 09:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Gyldenløve

The Gyldenløve War article documents the same war, though somewhat from Swedish perspective. It's got some nice info, so it would be good to merge them imho. --The Minister of War 07:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky question. As I understand it the Gyldenløve War was fought in western Sweden (mostly in Bohuslän) between Swedish troops and a Norwegian army under command of the Danish general Gyldenløve, while the Scanian War was fought in Terra Scania (Skåne, Halland and Blekinge) between Christian V and Charles XI. The actions on the two fronts does not seem to be very well synchronized. (It would be interesting with some Danish and Norwegian input.) 83.248.26.221 09:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Gyldenløve War refers solely to the Norwegian campaign, then is there a name for the Danish campaign called in Sweden as far as you know? Because maybe we should use the term Scanian war for the entire war (after all Denmark-Norway was one country, so we should list it as one war imho), and split it up in the Gyldenløve War (the Norwegian campaign) and the other term for the Danish campaign - if such a name exists. Of course, assuming these names are NPOV...--The Minister of War 09:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian part of the Scanian War is called the Gyldenløve War, and I think it should have it's own page but just about the campaign led by Gyldenløve. The Danish army wanted a two-front war. torstein 12:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea as to what the Danish part of the Scanian War could be called? --The Minister of War 09:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just should be called the Scanian War. There isn't any other name for it, as far as I know. torstein 10:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think I have to agree with torstein. From a Swedish point of view the whole war was called the Scanian War (in Swedish of course) but the Norwegian actions (The Gyldenløve War) probably deserves an article of its own. Both the operations in Bohuslän and in Skåne was far more complicated than the present articles implies and it would be difficult to fit it all in one article. However, maybe both article needs some attention. 83.248.26.221 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the war

I've made a new warbox for the war, linking it to the Franco-Dutch War, and linking downwards to two seperate campaigns/subwars, the Scanian offensive (not entirely satisfied with that one, but dont know any better one), and the Gyldenlove war. These two can than be subdivided into the different battles. Of course, we will have to rewrite several parts of the articles, but that shouldnt be too much of a problem. Does this division make some sense? --The Minister of War 08:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After pondering it over some time, i dont think it makes sense. I'll put them back together again on Scanian War, with different sections on the invasion of Scania and the Gyldenløve War. --The Minister of War 12:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have compiled an article combining all the information again, omitting the duplicated info. I put it on User:The Minister of War/Scanian War. I'd like some input before i put it online. --The Minister of War 14:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

After hearing no objections, i have merged the wars once again. Looks much better imho. The Minister of War 09:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result

I have changed the result from “Decisive Swedish Victory” to “No result / French dictated peace”. Every Danish history book I have says this. I’m aware that there is probably a tendency to nationalism in the writing. It would be funny to hear what Swedish history books say the result is.

Anyway it is only a Swedish victory in that they did not lose anything, but they did not gain anything either. From the Danish side it is only a loss in that they did not gain anything, but they also did not lose anything. When the French dictated peace was signed Denmark held, among others, Gottorp, Gotland, Rugen, Wismar, Helsingborg and Landkrona.

They where pretty much stuck in a gridlock. Swedish victory in Skåne (at least no sign of Denmark military win in the near future), Swedish loss at sea and its German possessions all lost. This could actually have been a very long standoff war. That the Danish was heavy disappointed with the resulting peace, absolutely, that does however not make it a decisive Swedish victory. Twthmoses 02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in practice the result must be considered a Danish loss, as this was the last attempt of the Danes to reclaim their lost territory. / Fred-Chess 10:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could consider it a Norwegian victory since the Swedes were consistently defeated by the Norwegians, who successfully occupied their former territories of Bohuslän and Jämtland. Or perhaps a victory by the Danes, since no battles were fought on then-Danish territory and no reparations were paid. But since the French dictated a return to pre-existing boundaries (even though Dano-Norwegian forces clearly were in "Sweden" at the time the treaty was "brokered"), Twthmoses is probably correct as he states—a standoff.

If one applies the Moberg test, this was certainly not a Swedish victory. But not to worry—Sweden had plenty of notable victories during those centuries. No need to "create" more by converting a standoff to a victory. Williamborg 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Swedes lost the battles at sea, 3000 dead in the Battle of Køge Bay alone with almost no significant Danish/Norwegian losses, however the emphasis from a Swedish POV always seems to rely solely on the ground war in Scania, which they no doubt won, but that doesn't constitutes winning the war.

Ok, I concede already. / Fred-Chess 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Killerman2 thinks that the result line should read "Sweden victory, Scanian lands belongs to Sweden / French dictated peace". Based on that I assume that Killerman2 thinks that it is a Swedish victory because they got to keep / did not lose, a land they already owned for nearly 20 years. Personal I don’t disagree at all that Sweden came out in the long run with more land (= victory), but this article is not about the long run, but specified about the result in the Scanian War. There is little doubt that the Scanian War ended in a status quo, no gain and no loss for anybody in terms of land. The question is, is this to be understood as a Swedish victory since they successful defended and didn’t lose land they already had and consequently a Danish loss?

The Torstensson war (1643-1645), a very well planed and executed war, was a Swedish victory; The Karl Gustav war (Northern Wars) (1657-1660) was a Swedish victory. Both are described and stated as Swedish victories in any Danish lexicon or book that I have. The Scanian War on the other hand receives no such application in the very same books. As said previously it would be nice to hear what Swedish and Norwegian books actually say the result of this war is. Consequently I changed the result back to “No result/ French dictated peace” Comments? Twthmoses 09:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden won the war becorse the Scanian lands belongs to Sweden even nows. Killerman2 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support "No result / French dictated peace". My Norwegian history book says the same as yours, and also that Denmark-Norway were given nominal damages (symbolsk erstatning). --torstein 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but in the Swedish history books says at Sweden victory and at the Scanian lands is stills Swedens. Killerman2 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden didn't win. They could eventually have won it, but it was ended before this was possible. When the war was over Danish-Norwegian forces stood in Helsingborg, Landskrona, Bohuslän, Gotland, Bremen and Pommern, and they were also the leading sea power. --torstein 21:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Swedish history books are all that matters here Killerman2? Let me answer that for you, no they aren't. Plus you haven't given any sources except for us taking your word for it. Also, you had your ass handed to you on sea, which means you LOST the war on sea. Should Denmark then claim a victory? I'll concede that you won on land, lost at sea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.53.241.245 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This comment is not very collegial... "had your ass handed to you" is just not likely to have people react calmly. Please consider trying to use a more neutral tone, even here in talk. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow moving revert war

Recent history shows a slow moving revert war here with Killerman2 not running afoul of 3RR but nevertheless reverting to a desired result, with some borderline (or worse) incivil edit summaries to boot. Let's not do that ok? I do not think WP:3RR is a license to get 2 reverts a day. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless 2 reverts a day are a good was to let the diatribe decante.--Huatai 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. See WP:0RR Edit warring is never good. Now that you've got my attention, if the revert warring continues I will determine who to hand blocks out to, regardless of whether their reversions are inside 3RR or not. 3RR is not a license to get 3 reverts a day. What I see here is consensus and one user pushing for their version. Not acceptable. Note carefully I have no opinion on the content dispute only on what I think the consensus about it is. ++Lar: t/c

I have nothing to do with this matter, it just happened to "fall under my eyes" while reading around. However, I really feel you are too eager to "handle blocks around". Maybe it would be better if someone else (another admin, I mean) would be in charge of this.--Huatai 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar gave his advice on my request, since I have been involved in the article and did not want to issue blocks and protections myself, so I asked him for assistance! I have no doubt about Lar's actions.

Killerman2 needs to stop reverting to the version which is concensus based -- this version should be the "status quo". If he wishes to challenge it, he must do so by providing sources supporting his view -- that is, exact sources : which book, and a direct quote. Continously reverting back is only disruptive and must be denounced.

Fred-Chess 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fred means that Killerman2 should stop reverting AWAY FROM the version that is consensus based. :) but other than that I agree. I have no dog in the hunt regarding the content dispute. I was asked to come in and give a look, and I reported what I saw. Huatai, thanks for your opinion just the same, as it's not often we see a user as apparently new as you commenting on something this esoteric. ++Lar: t/c 08:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result edited

I have changed the result to "status quo ante bellum", however i didnt know how to deal with the last part "/french dictated peace with no significant territorial losses or gains for either side" - so i decided to leave it there for now.

maybe it should just read "status quo ante bellum /french dictated peace". I see no need to point out that there wasn't any significant losses or gains in territory....when there was infact NO territorial changes at all. so the last sentence doesent really make sense.

Obviously i also support the consensus based version, that this conflict had no result, and therefore no winner or loser. Though some swedish territory was held by the danes at the end of the war, the french dictated peace gave the danes nothing but small war reparations from sweden, thus making it a status quo Davamb (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed a speculative phrase

I have removed a sentence saying: "On the way back to Landskrona the Danish army plundered all villages it passed, effectively destroying the last support it had from local peasants.". saying that the danish army lost support from the local population is a Point of view, and pure speculation. furthermore would it be correct to mention this, without mentioning all the suffering and torture the swedish army caused on the locals. it appears just slightly biased. Davamb (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]