What is the world's bravest nation

[klopolov]

First I would like to say that I am not really talking out of any patriotic fervor, any patriotism in my posts comes from the Swedish schooling which just as all countries educational systems give a very postive and patriotic image of its country's history.

Well, the fact is that when it comes to Russia, and even if it was from Swedish perspectives defensive wars it was Swedish armies trampling around in Russia, not the other way around. Swedish holdings on the other side of the Baltic doesnt count as Sweden proper To my knowledge the only armies who have been on the soil of Sweden proper have been Danish, but they on the other hand have been there a lot.

You might not be surprized to find out that in Russia they are of a contrary opinion... To the best of my knowledge (which is tainted due to a rather long period of time since I was reading a lot of history books), it is true that Russian army failed a few times to defeat Sweden, but that was not due to the bravery or millitary genious of Swedish people. The cannons that the Russian army was bringing along were stuck in mud and thousands of soldiers died trying to get them out. The supply wagons were stuck in mud and thousand of soldiers starved and later died trying to get the cannons out of the mud. The cannons were poorly made and were of no use in battle other than blowing up Russian soldiers. The Russian army was exhousted, poorly fitted, lacked supplies and was sent into battle only because Peter the Great refused to accept defeat untill there was no other choice. However, if memory serves, once the heads started rolling, millitary reorganized and new, much better quality cannons made (they even took bells off the churches to make them), the Russian army was victorious.

Also check this out: http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/projekt/history/articles/decline/decline5.htm

There is no bravest nation, as Adler17 wrote, each nation has had a moment of greatness and bravery and it is impossible to think of a criteria by which one could compare them.

 

[joacqin]

And as I stated Klopolov around the time after Peter the Great or thereabouts the tables turned and it was Russia who kicked Swedish butts all the time until they finally took Finland. Even so, most if not all Swedish-Russian fighting has taken place on Russian soil. In my book that counts for a lot.

 

[Vrylakas]

Even so, most if not all Swedish-Russian fighting has taken place on Russian soil. In my book that counts for a lot.

No, that usually just means there was little strategic point to invading Sweden for most local powers. What's there? Some ports in the north Baltic maybe, but most concerned powers have at least that if not better southern Baltic ports. Otherwise (pre-modern) Sweden produced no major strategic product (food, timber, etc.) useful to contemporary armies and states. Hitler didn't even bother in 1939-45. Sweden's neighbors had stuff Sweden wanted - territory, resources, etc. - but Sweden itself was a poor prize for Russia, Poland or other powers. What would have been the point? This is why Swedish military exploits have taken place largely on foreign soils.

 

[Communisto]

I am shocked that Ireland isn't included in this list. As a people we've indured as many harsdhips as any other. Our culture was almost wiped out by the Brits and Scots. we fought for 700 years and still are today. We have had our people scattered from Ireland because of poverty, famine and un-employment (which is the reason i'm here in Canada). So anyway I think the little scrapper that is Ireland deserves a near top place in your list

 

[Combat Ingrid]

Hitler didn't even bother in 1939-45.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_iron_ore_(WWII)

 

[Verbose]

No, that usually just means there was little strategic point to invading Sweden for most local powers. What's there?

What there is, that might be of interest, are rich mineral deposists: silver, copper and naturally pure iron ore, very important before the refining processes worked out in the 18th c.

But none of this has ever been sufficiently interesting to be worth the bother. Sweden's entrance into international politics was through war, since this really was at the heart of the matter in the 17th c. You made war, and then peace, and that was how a nation established itself as someone to be reckoned with. Sweden went looking for trouble, but not directly with Russia.

The Swedish-Russian conflict has always been about territory, not people or resources. Since Sweden had gotten hold of a Baltic empire by the time Russia had sorted out its Tartar problem, Russian expansion (mostly getting ports for trade) had to go through Swedish territory.

From a Swedish perspective the whole military glory thing was always a bit hollow. Economic and demographic historians can show some pretty impressive figures for how Sweden just took off in the 18th c. as soon as the wars ended with the Great Nordic War. Richer, longer, healthier lives and more babies for all (almost). The benefit of the fighting was indirect through efficient administration, little corruption etc. put in place to feed the wars.

 

[Verbose]

You might not be surprized to find out that in Russia they are of a contrary opinion... To the best of my knowledge (which is tainted due to a rather long period of time since I was reading a lot of history books), it is true that Russian army failed a few times to defeat Sweden, but that was not due to the bravery or millitary genious of Swedish people. The cannons that the Russian army was bringing along were stuck in mud and thousands of soldiers died trying to get them out. The supply wagons were stuck in mud and thousand of soldiers starved and later died trying to get the cannons out of the mud. The cannons were poorly made and were of no use in battle other than blowing up Russian soldiers. The Russian army was exhousted, poorly fitted, lacked supplies and was sent into battle only because Peter the Great refused to accept defeat untill there was no other choice. However, if memory serves, once the heads started rolling, millitary reorganized and new, much better quality cannons made (they even took bells off the churches to make them), the Russian army was victorious.

Funny, none of these problems ever seemed to plague the Swedish troops fighting under the same conditions.

But seriously,I'm not really surprised at this, and this is very likely a good description of the Russian situation.

However, if one compares the performance of the Russian and Swedish armies, all of this can be read as confirmation of the Swedish version.
All the learning and improvement had to be done on the Russian side. Demographics and economics says Sweden should be swatted like fly, not just by Russian, but by anybody, but that wasn't what happened.

What you have is a situation where the Russians "get stuck in the mud" through lack of competence, lack of experience, deficient logistics, a technological gap (crap cannons) etc. etc. I think I can emphatically state that no Swedish troops have ever died from getting their guns stuck in the mud. It would be a Russian problem due to the fact that somehow the army didn't quite know its business.

Once the Russian army got these things sorted out it would eventually end up with Cossacks patrolling the streets of Paris in 1814 of course, but initially Russia was playing catchup like there was no tomorrow, and at one point it was Sweden it was chasing. As soon as Russia started to get things right Sweden was toast since competence and efficiency was the only edge it ever had. (No money, no people.)

 

[Squonk]

I have to disagree on Poland, they if anyone have been histories whipping boy. Their bravery consists of having repelled perhaps a third of the invasions launched at them and that isnt that good of a ratio.

First of all, thanks to all that voted for Poland

And secondly...
1) Bravery has little to do with military success.
2) When it comes to it, however, Poland successfully repelled Swedish invasions, even though being attacked on other boarders and having internal troubles.

During "Swedish Flood", 1655-1660, Poland was virtually defenceless, with Russians already in Vilnius, and the leaders of the army on Swedish side.
At some point in the war, all Poland consisted all was a pair of mountain villages, Jasna Gora monastery, and castles in Rzeszow and Lancut, perhaps Gdansk was still holding, don't know. It was in a war against Sweden, Brandenburg-Prussia, Russia, Cossacks, Crymean Khanate, Transsilvania,
with peasant revolts around.
And it managed to end this was moderatily successfully, and take part in liberating Denmark...

 

[Fox Mccloud]

First of all, thanks to all that voted for Poland

And secondly...
1) Bravery has little to do with military success.
2) When it comes to it, however, Poland successfully repelled Swedish invasions, even though being attacked on other boarders and having internal troubles.

During "Swedish Flood", 1655-1660, Poland was virtually defenceless, with Russians already in Vilnius, and the leaders of the army on Swedish side.
At some point in the war, all Poland consisted all was a pair of mountain villages, Jasna Gora monastery, and castles in Rzeszow and Lancut, perhaps Gdansk was still holding, don't know. It was in a war against Sweden, Brandenburg-Prussia, Russia, Cossacks, Crymean Khanate, Transsilvania,
with peasant revolts around.
And it managed to end this was moderatily successfully, and take part in liberating Denmark...

Yeah, That's why I voted Poland...

 

[expeliarmus]

I don't think there's a single nation as the bravest in History.
Many nations have had moments in which they had to fight for their identity, or freedom, or just survival.
I think the Celts can be one of the bravest, also the Greeks, who fought against the Ottoman Empire for their freedom. The Dutch were very brave against the Spanish, also. The Vietnamese weren't so brave... the terrain played a lot in their favour.
Also the Spaniards have had moments of bravery, during the napoleonic invasion, fighting against the most powerful army of Europe at the time without more weapons than their rakes. Without forgetting that in the 16-17th centuries the Spanish army (the Tercios) were the most feared in europe...hehe.
So, in conclusion, when a nation is invaded, or in necessity of freedom, the people can show the bravest of them.

 

[superisis]

The vietnamese weren't brave?

Spending months at a time in dugout holes in the ground without any light... that takes a lot of guts. But I haven't studied Vietnam enough to argue in their favour.

 

[Sgt.Hellfish]

By the way who said something about the yanks going into every war alone? save the American civil war (im counting the french as being on the American side in the war of independace) and the 1890? war against Britain i dont know of any war in which America has gone in alone.

 

[Bugfatty300]

By the way who said something about the yanks going into every war alone? save the American civil war (im counting the french as being on the American side in the war of independace) and the 1890? war against Britain i dont know of any war in which America has gone in alone.

(I assume from your other post) By 1890 you mean the 1812 war right?

Well there is the Spanishh-American War, Mexican-American War, Invasion of Panama, Barbory Wars, Invasion of Korea (1870s), Philippine insurection, all sorts of war in Central America and the Caribbean and along with several more and the ones you mentioned.

But I don't think anybody said that. I think they were talking about Americans usually being outnumbered.

 

[Ramius75]

Normally, i will like to segregate the invasion force(bully wannabe) to the defender(hero, the good guys).

edited

 

[Bugfatty300]

oh great so many invasions, US is surely very brave indeed.

Normally, i will like to segregate the invasion force(bully wannabe) to the defender(hero, the good guys).

You seem to have misunderstood.

I was responding to Sgt Hellfish's post. I never claimed or made these out to be very brave actions of the county.

To the contrary, most of them were against weak enemies with superior and overwhelming force.

So I would appreciate it if you would remove my quote from your post.

Thanks

 

[TrailblazingScot]

By the way who said something about the yanks going into every war alone? save the American civil war (im counting the french as being on the American side in the war of independace) and the 1890? war against Britain i dont know of any war in which America has gone in alone.

America went to war against Britain in 1890?

How did I miss that

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Bravest nation right now? I'd say the Iraqi police men being blow to bits by the dozens daily.

Vietnam - resisting the US imperialism and trying to forge a nation of their own and belief.

lol US imperialism? You're a funny guy, I think you ment Chinese imperialism. they forged their nation of their own belief after they purged it of all the freedom loving people.

 

[Gelion]

As it was said here every nation has its moments. As far as fighting skills are concerned I vote for Spartans, Romans, Celts (all) and both Russian and German troops in WW2 period.
In "nations bravery" I'd say Poles (since XVI), Russians during the great wars (that were of course won by mother nature, not sacrifices of all people ), Germans (XX), Vietnamese (XX), Japanese (mostly culturally) and Romans in times of Punic Wars.

 

[Sgt.Hellfish]

lol kitten as Bugfatty said i had my dates mixed up again (it was rather late)

 

[Verbose]

First of all, thanks to all that voted for Poland
During "Swedish Flood", 1655-1660, Poland was virtually defenceless, with Russians already in Vilnius, and the leaders of the army on Swedish side.
At some point in the war, all Poland consisted all was a pair of mountain villages, Jasna Gora monastery, and castles in Rzeszow and Lancut, perhaps Gdansk was still holding, don't know. It was in a war against Sweden, Brandenburg-Prussia, Russia, Cossacks, Crymean Khanate, Transsilvania,
with peasant revolts around.
And it managed to end this was moderatily successfully, and take part in liberating Denmark...

I certainly don't mind Poland geting the votes.

As for the "Swedish flood", my impression of the Polish way of fighting this was is that initially Poland just "went to battle", but after the first year of so it "went to war".

The Polish monarchy was very weak. The country was a pretty decentralised federation, and the real power was held by "the magnates", hugely powerful landlords, in many cases way more powerful than the king.

So when Swedish king Charles X decided Poland was ripe for conquest (whith a seriuous rebellion brewing in the Ukraine), the magnates attitude was intially to let the king sort it out. The magnates had armies of their own, but weren't very interested in chipping in. So initially the Swedes faced a feudal, noble cavalry army called up on the spur of the moment. (And expecting an easy whin and a short war. They had ridden everyone else down locally since the middle ages. But this time they went up against modern infantry and arty, which initially turned it into a massacre.)

Then there was a bit of confusion as the king had been defeated, and the magnates weren't quite sure how to play this one. For a while they entertained the idea that one king was pretty much as good, or bad, as the next, and a number of them started to swear allegiance to Charles X. The Swedes were extatic, starting to babble excitedly about Empire from the Baltic to the Black Sea. And then it dawned upon the polish nobility, magnates and all, that the Swedish idea of how to run thing wouldn't let them go about their business as they always had.

Coupled with some highly symbolic success at the monastery of Jasna Gora, where a Black Madonna was to have helped defeat the Swedes, this was a formula for getting all of Poland's hitherto untapped resources thrown into the balance and the Swedes back to the Baltic coast and Danzig.
(Which btw was a mainly German free city surrounded by the east Prussian lands of the arch-duke of Brandenburg, who had been freed from his dependancy on the Polish king by the war, setting the stage for establishing Prussia.)

And in the end all this meant Sweden simultaneously fighting Poland, Austria, Brandenburg, Denmark, Russia and the Netherlands.

It's only ally was the ruler of Transylvania, as Squonk stated, but he was a protestant religious nut. (He entered the war expecting the Second coming of Christ. He wasn't alone in this at the time. In England Cromwell did the same, and urged Charles X to march on Rome, depose the pope and bring about the End of Days. Charles responded by offering England the chance to carve up Denmark-Norway as Swedish ally. Cromwell was pondering this as he suddenly died.) Translylvania didn't have anything in the way of a useful army and the king just tagged along with the Swedes, terrified of returning home and getting it from the Poles.

It ended in 1658, with the most spectacularly successful peace Sweden has ever had (brokered by France and England), but one that left Poland free (if with Brandenburg/Prussia as neighbour for the future) and ensured the continued existence of (decimated) Denmark.

It's one of these wars that could have turned out a lot worse for most of the parties involved.