Talk:Northern War of 1655–1660

RESULT

The result of this war was rather "mixed", with minor swedish defeat against Poland-Lithuania/Holly Roman Empire and swedish minor victory against Denmark and Russia. Proposition: Result: Mixed -Swedish invasion on Poland and Lithuania repeled. -status quo in russo-swedish war -Treaty of Copenhagen

Brandenburgian-Swedish alliance and Russia's war on Sweden

"...stayed in besieged Danzig, just a few kilometers away from Charles X Gustav's quarters in Elbing".

Two things:

1. In that time Danzig (I understand that an author meant Gdańsk, am I right?) wasn't besieged anymore;
2. There is 55 kilometers from Gdańsk to Elbląg, not "a few" - two days of marching for any unopposed army of 17th cent.

belissarius (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. One could argue if 55 km are "a few" or not, compared to other distances in the PLC or the perception of distances in Central Europe and the US, but since this is open to interpretation, I go for introducing the "55 km". Regarding the 1656 siege, it is true that this siege was lifted in September, two month befor the king arrived, and the Siege of Danzig (1655–1660) article regarding this siege needs expansion.

I have thus changed the sentence to read "[...] stayed in Danzig, where a Swedish siege had to be lifted due to Dutch intervention, just 55 kilometers away from Charles X Gustav [...]", taking your word for the 55 kilometers. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Northern War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I could not determine the correct target for Frederick of Hesse, all the Wikipedia articles are about later Fredericks. I fixed all others. diff

Link rot: No dead links.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is well written and complies with the WP:MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well referenced, I assume good faith for the sources, which all appear reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed, giving an overviewe without too much intricate detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am very happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! I shall leave you decide what to do about Frederick of Hess. Perhaps there is not an artcile on this particular noble. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Colonial actions

The War enabled New Netherland to seize control of New Sweden in September 1655, ending what was possibly the most significant Swedish colony in history. Clearly this wasn't a major aspect of the Second Northern War overall, but I still think the article should make at least a passing mention of the brief colonial conflict and the following battle between the Dutch and the Susquehannock, a Native American ally of New Sweden. - Oisín^(Message) 16:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Was Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth fighting at two fronts?

The Russo-Polish War (1654–67) was still going on. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Title

According to our article Northern War, this conflict is known as the "First Northern War" in "Anglo-Saxon, German, Russian and Scandinavian historiography". Isn't that all of the significant ones, aside from Polish historiography? Even if it weren't, shouldn't Anglo-Saxon historiography predominate on the English Wikipedia. Shouldn't this be moved to First Northern War? john k (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

North American theatre

It is debatable whether the conquest of New Sweden or the Peach War should be considered part of the Second Northern War. As indicated in the lead: "The Dutch Republic waged an informal trade war against Sweden and seized the colony of New Sweden in 1655, but was not a recognized part of the Polish–Danish alliance."

The description of the Peach War is inaccurate and is not supported by the first of the two sources cited (Ruttenber 1872). The second source has been deleted from the NJCU website.

The Peach War was not a punitive attack by the Susquehannock. The occupation of New Amsterdam by 500 Munsee could best be described as a riot or armed protest, but no blood was shed until the Dutch fired upon the Munsee as they were leaving. In response, the Munsee attacked Pavonia and Staten Island. Stuyvesant reported 40 colonists were killed and 100 taken captive. Griffin's Sword (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Independent of the Dutch government, and several months before the Second Northern War began, the directors of Dutch West India Company ordered Director-General Stuyvesant to "drive" the Swedes from the river. This was in response to the seizure of Fort Casimir by the Swedes the previous year. While the Dutch did intervene in the Second Northern War, a "state of war" never existed between the Dutch Republic and Sweden. Griffin's Sword (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Result of the Deluge

@Gvssy first the result was Draw, then Swedish victory, then Polish victory and now it's Swedish victory again. How about all of this gets removed? All historians have their claims on which side won or was the war inconclusive.

Olek Novy (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your suggestion? Gvssy (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

My point is that "Swedish Victory against Poland" should be removed, as said one historian said that it was a draw, another said that it was a victory for Sweden and another said that it was a victory for Poland. These opinions should get either added to a aftermath section. Olek Novy (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, seems fair Gvssy (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox looks pretty messy anyways. We should consider just putting the links to the treaties in the infobox. Most large wars of the 17th century have that on Wikipedia. Even those were the victor is pretty clear like the Second Anglo-Dutch War. People can make their own minds up by reading why and how the war ended. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

First or Second Northern War?

According to every historiography (including English), except Polish-Lithuanian, classifies this as the "First Northern War", including Encyclopædia Britannica. It has come to my attention by another user commenting on this, that Anglo-Saxon/English historiography must also take precedence over other historiography. So, I'll be taking action and changing it to "First Northern War" PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@PortugueseWikiMan : I'm neutral on this (for now) as I've not looked into it in detail. But either way, this obviously has to go through the process of a Requested move for it to happen. Imonoz (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Northern War of 1655–1660. Favonian (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Second Northern War → First Northern War – Most historiographies, including English in Encyclopædia Britannica, say that this is the First Northern War, not the Second. The only historiography that doesn't say that this is the First Northern War is the Polish-Lithuanian one, and according to an old thread in the talk page, English historiography must take precedence over other historiographies. So, this is why this should be the First Northern War. PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The current nomenclature is not that unreasonable. Quote from Frost, p.13: The term "Second Northern War" is applied to the conflict which opened with the Swedish invasion of Poland-Lithuania in July 1655, and which ended in 1660 with the treaties of Oliva and Copenhagen. Thus the Great Northern War (1700-21) is the Third Northern War . German scholarship is increasingly adopting this nomenclature following the cogent advocacy of Klaus Zernack, although he uses the term "First Northern War" to cover the whole of what was traditionally labelled the Livonian War (1558-83). This study will adopt Zernack's nomenclature [...] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. We could go with Northern War of 1655–1660. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  This sounds good. It is neutral, and consistent with the fact that we don't have an article with the title "First Northern War". Should we also have proper dab pages on First and Second Northern War? I find that the article Northern Wars is not ideal for quick navigation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Poland, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Russia, and WikiProject Sweden have been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• SUpport unambiguous Northern War of 1655–1660. (I will nt be surprized that there were "Northern Wars" in China as well :-)) - Altenmann >talk 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support: "First Northern War" is an improvement over "Second Northern War" given the uncontested observations made concerning most historiographies and the Encyclopædia Britannica. This establishes "First Northern War" as the English-language WP:COMMONNAME. Even if one accepts that "current nomenclature is not that unreasonable", does it represent a minority view being given WP:UNDUE weight? However, "Northern War of 1655–1660" is an improvement over both as it better satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISE.

Chino-Catane (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Searching for "Second Northern War" from Google Books mostly returns references to this war, so in that sense the current title is not a minority view. More relevantly, there does not seem to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "First Northern War". This war is the most common meaning, but not with an overwhelming margin over other wars. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support alternative Northern War of 1655–1660. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.