Talk:Swedish Empire

Comments
Nobody likes Protestant Northern Europeans, interestingly. Anyway, this article calls the attack, by PROTESTANT Sweden on CATHOLIC Poland "immoral". UNAMBIGUOUSLY, this is a VALUE judgement, and has not place in a SCHOLARLY OBJECTIVE ARTICLE. Apparently, people need me to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Swedish Empire and Swedish empire point to different articles (the latter redirects to Realm of Sweden. These should be merged or disambiguated in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenRG (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 October 2003 (UTC)


 * Both links now point to this acticle. -- Mic — Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 17 October 2003 (UTC)

Kings
I wonder why there is a long part about Charles XI when the most important persons of the Swedish Empire clearly is Gustav II Adolph and Charles XII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.250 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two sure are important, it started and ended with them respectively, but to call them the most important? I don´t know about that.

Queen Christina took over after Gustavus the Great. During here time the nobility gained much power and influence. Both politically and economically. Charles X came after her. His time was one of wars. Because Sweden was too poor to pay for it´s army, it had to be used. And used in neighbouring countrys. Such as Poland.

Charles XI recognized this and spent almost his entire time as a ruler to do build up the internal strength for to preserve peace. It was this instrument he created, both military and economically, that made it possible for Sweden to endure 21 years of war against an immense overpower. One can´t excist without the others, so no one is more inportant than anyone else.

Jens S, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

and their demise
A real tragedy...

"The plan of Gustav Adolphus was to become the new Holy Roman Emperor over a Scandinavia united with the Holy Roman Empire[citation needed], his death however in 1632 at the Battle of Lützen shattered that dream."

Don't you hate it when death shatters your dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.175.196 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a "fact" that is not proven. It has been discussed over the years, but noone really knows what Gustavus the Great thought about it. Only himself... And an allience with the Holy Roman Empire? The Catholics whom he fought almost all his life? No way, but a protestantic Nortern empire, consisting of Sweden and Denmark in union with Brandenbourg and an alliance of northern german states - perhaps...

Jens S, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

POV
==I wonder This article should be a lot more neutral. To begin with, countries are NOT referred to as "he" or "she". This is an encyplopedia. Piet 07:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It says the article uses material from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, perhaps this was the style in that "encyclopædia". Maver1ck 10:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - this is overdramatic - someone ought to tag it to be "conformed to a higher standard of quality" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.124.139 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The English is creaky throughout. It could be from Britannica or it could be bad translation. It's full of phrases like "in respect thereof". The POV is also a little one sided. I'm going to make an attempt to edit it, starting with the first para, if people like the result I'll continue. --Nickj69 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay first section done. After reading it again I believe it is simply the style of the old Encyc Britannica. I've read other articles like this. Although it seems POV, it's not really. Take for example "Sweden's reward for the exertions and sacrifices of eighteen years was meagre, almost paltry". This seems POV. Yet Sweden intervened in the Thirty Years war in 1630 and the peace was concluded in 1648. Even without explicit knowledge you can assume that the cost in men and money was high. This in return for a few islands and a strip of land was "meagre, almost paltry". Also the use of "she" and "he" is grammatically fine, just a little old fashioned. --Nickj69 17:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing seems a bit ancient, could use some modernizing. The nuetrality should definitly be questioned, glorifying Sweden and making it seem like a long, melodromatic tragedy, almost Shakespearean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.70.135 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the Swedish empire?
If this article is about The Swedish empire, then I think there should be a definition of Swedish empire right at the beginning. I mean if someone wonders what is the Swedish empire, this article doesn't really anwser it clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.151.236 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It clearly says "Sweden was, between 1611 and 1718, one of the great powers of Europe. In modern historiography this period is known as the Swedish Empire, or Stormaktstiden ("the era of great power")." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.105.40 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Sweden between 1611 and 1718, a period where it was a Great Power in Europe and thus often referred to as the Swedish Empire or Era of Great Power by Swedes. Note that it was never an actual Empire with an Emperor. Azaan H 06:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Its pathetic to call it Swedish empire.
Then almost all countries in the world could be a empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.124.250 (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Swedes themselves don't use that word. They talk about "great power era" (stormaktstid). At the time, the only Western empire was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and the contemporaries talked about the Swedish realm. However, from present standpoint, the use of word "Empire" to describe the multinational area which was conquered by military force, is about correct. --130.230.131.108 06:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not sure I agree that its pathetic to call it an empire - in fact it was one. However, it can sound a bit silly and tenda to overdramataise things a bit. I think a title like "Sweden as a Greate Power" would be better. This page is a part of the History of Sweden serie, by the way. And yes its EB11.
 * --Screensaver 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would the title be changed to "Swedens as a Greate Power" when Swedish Empire is the official term? Why is it overdramataising, thinking of how many nations that has been called Empires even though they have a fairly small landmass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.64.45 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At 440 000 square km Sweden was one of the largest countries in all of Europe that time, and it was very capable in military point of view, now, is it pathetic to call that country an Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.180 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, once upon a time Denmark too controlled land that expanded much much further than its original landmass, for several centuries no less, but you don't see us running around overdramatising it to promote ourselves in English Wikipedia, which surely must be the ONLY place in the world where Sweden could be called an "empire", not to mention the lack of an "emperor". - Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.41.208 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all the term "The Swedish Empire" is not only used by Wikipedia, it is the general term for Sweden at this time. Second of all, Swedens power was at this time to be mesured with other European nations that were Great Powers. Sweden had to fight several nations at the same time, still won and was able to take controll over new areas. The area which Sweden ruled was larger than for example the German Empire, and several other nations which have been called "Empires". And i also feel this is a case of Napoleon Complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.64.45 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Danish Empire. I see it plainly as an effect of Napoleon complex, that some Danes react so harshly against this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.188.163 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An Empire is the definition of a state which has several different nations under it's rule, which Sweden had at this time, as you said Denmark has in that sentence also been an Empire, so has many other countries. And Sweden was in that case an Empire since the eleventh century until 1809. Infact Swedens realm was even greater in the 1300s than during Emperial times since both Finland and Norway was Swedish, but the term "Swedish Empire" represent the era of when Sweden mastered great military power and significant political influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.180 (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to side with those who propose Sweden as a Great Power rather than the current Swedish Empire. The reasons are:
 * the term "Empire" is not used in contemporary Swedish terminology while "Great Power" is
 * Sweden did not call itself an "Empire" at the time nor (to my knowledge) did any other countries
 * technically, an Emperor is someone who rules over other Kings (such as eg Napoleon did). This was not the case of Sweden
 * Any comments, thoughts or views on this? Osli73 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding questions 2: The Holy Roman Empire was a contemporary empire (Imperium), and question 3: An empire does not necessarily involve an emperor (ex. British Empire). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Swedish Empire" is an invention on Wikipedia. There has never been a Swedish king styling himself "Emperor". The British Empire did indeed have an Emperor since their kings and queens were Emperors and Empresses of India. Even during its greatest extent as a Great Power Sweden did not contain "nations" (a 19th century concept). Finland was an integral part of Sweden. The parts conquered from Denmark were forcibly integrated into Sweden. Also, in the Baltic provinces the Swedish kings took great measures to undermine the political independence of the Baltic-German nobility and integrate into the Swedish system. The position of the Swedish king as lord of the German provinces was in fact that the German emperor was nominally his overlord with respect to those provinces. This article should be re-named as suggested above. It is not serious to make references to the "Swedish Empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing the title Greater Sweden. "Swedish Empire" looks indeed ridiculous, as there was never a Swedish emperor. --Gwafton (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The assertion about the British Empire from User talk:192.171.4.126 is incorrect. The BE long predates the British monarch taking the title of Emperor/Empress of India; see British Empire and Emperor of India. User:Saddhiyama is quite correct and this article does not need any change of title. Harfarhs (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The term Empire is used to refer to countries with large land masses or wielding great power, along with actual Empires such as the Holy Roman Empire, which would generally contain smaller Kingdoms within them. So the term Swedish Empire is perfectly fine, as many other Wikipedia articles list large colonial empires, lacking an Emperor, as Empires (see, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire). Of course, if this article claims that Sweden was governed as an Imperial State (like the HRE) or had an Emperor, you can change it. Azaan H 06:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting
I'm working on this page - attempting to change the language from poetic than encyclopedic. I would appreciate any comments or help to make sure that I preserve the factual core and do not misinterpret any of the language. Hillbillygirl 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles XII
Shouldn't there be a section on Charles XII and the Great Northern War which ended Sweden as a Great Power? I realize there is a section on that in the Age of Liberty, the next article of Swedish history, but it belongs here as well and even more so as the culmination of this Swedish Empire. MennoMan 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Area of the empire?
I've really got trouble understanding this part: "Thus, Sweden emerged from the war not only a military power, but also one of the largest states of Europe, possessing about twice as much territory as modern Sweden. The land area of Sweden was 440,000 square km, 18,000 square km larger than the German Empire in the beginning of the twentieth century."

On Wikipedia the stated land area of present Sweden is 410,934 km², so I don't understand how imperial Sweden, stated as being almost twice the size of modern Sweden, only could've been 440,000 km². Present Finland is 305,470 km², and I'm quite sure that it was larger under Sweden as a great power, so Sweden must at least have been ~715,000 km² by then? Mickey Macaroni 20:22, 4 may 2007 (CET)
 * It must have been more, 100 000-200 000 km² more or so than you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.98.180 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where the numbers are coming from but part of the question is to define the Swedish realm. This is by no means easy, as there were no fixed borders in the north. First of all, the borders were lines on the map at the best, as they were not marked, second, there was no international agreements about where the borders actually went. The Sami tribes herded their reindeer quite liberally, spending the winters by the Norwegian coast and summers in the fjalls that nowadays belong to Sweden or to Finland. There was very little governmental authority in the area and even this was concentrated into the few farming villages dwelled by mostly Finnish-speaking settlers. The area in question comprises several hundred thousand square kilometers, so I would not actually give any fixed estimate for the area. --MPorciusCato 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it´s a matter of confusion between sqaurekilometers and squaremiles. 440 000 sqmiles equals aproximatly 1 100 000 sqkilometers... And, bye the way, Sweden never demanded Silecia as the article says, but they did want Mecklenbourg... Jens S, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.118.203 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The section called "Peace of Oliva" contains some mathematical errors on the population density estimates: the second paragraph cites a land area of 1,100,000 km2 and a population of 2,500,000, and calculates the density at 5.6 people/km2. Just using those numbers, the average is 2.3 people/km2. I'm going to assume that the land area and population figures were correct, and go ahead and change the calculated density: let me know if I've assumed incorrectly. -Sven Bluejay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.129 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Military Success
Someone really should go through the newly added section "The military success." Interesting, yes, but cites nothing and is questionable in some instances.

--American Swede 24.22.163.238 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please check the last paragraph. I think it contains several typos in English. It could also be improved to be more objective regarding the faith of the people of that era. Andras Libal 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really gave this section an overhaul. The original author must really have a bad grasp of Swedish history becuase he described Gustavian cavalry tactics and (faulty) Carolean infantry tactics as an explanation for why Sweden had military successes throughout a whole century. --Adar 31 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomKli09 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The "empires borders"
During the Swedish "Empire" if you can call it that, i have read in some books that the Swedish Empire was as far down and close to Hungary (i hope i spell it right). I will try to look for the name on the post and i will post the name of the books soon :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.239.108.228 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that you found a map of Swedish-occupied areas during a war? These areas never were part of Swedish dominions though. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Country name
Shouldn't the country name in the infobox be Kingdom of Sweden? It seems that only modern day historians refer to it as Det svenska stormaktsväldet - Swedish Empire. Lt.Specht (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That a period is named in retrospect is nothing unusual, and that Sweden had her stormakt / imperial phase between Stolbovo and Nystad is established standard nomenclature. And given the historical events and Sweden's role in European politics during this period, the classification makes perfect sense. "Kingdom" is far to unspecific, as Sweden has "always" had monarchs. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having the contemporary and actual name explained in the introduction? I don't believe the reverting was justified. Articles like the Byzantine Empire's which use a modern given name state the name which was used while it existed in the introduction. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweden is still a kingdom NakkiHousu (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Empire without emperor?
Can there be an empire without an emperor? There never was a Swedish emperor. Is the term Swedish Empire established in any scholarly literature outside of Wikipedia? I think Great Sweden would be a more appropriate article name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The British Empire? Hayden120 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Dutch Empire... john k (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair the Spanish Empire did have an emperor for a period of time, and Victoria did take the title empress of India, but otherwise I agree. An "empire" does not necessarily have to be ruled by an emperor. I am curious to know though, and I guess the article would be improved if it contained this piece of information, if it was called "Swedish Empire" by contemporaries (both in Sweden and abroad), or whether it is a modern appellation used by historians only. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles V very explicitly did not rule the Spanish Empire as emperor. I agree that we should discuss whether the term is a later invention; I assume it is.  john k (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweden during this period would have been known as the "Kingdom of Sweden". The "Swedish Empire" is simply used as a retrospective term for when Sweden's territory was greater than it is today. A Google Books search shows common usage of the term, including at least two Cambridge publications. Britannica also uses it here. Hayden120 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What Hayden120 says. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Image correction
Can anyone correct this image - 1616 should read 1660--94.173.208.118 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for pointing it out! Hayden120 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback needed
If I had rollback rights I would fix the latest two disruptive edits to the article by IP 88.108.31.204. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. And I warned the user.


 * Although, actually, you could've done it without rollback; if you went in the 'history', clicked on Revision as of 14:30, 29 January 2011, edited the old version and then saved it (ignoring the warning thing saying You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed. - that would've had the same effect.


 * Cheers, anyway.  Chzz  ► 16:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you helping and for the tip! I have copied it to word and will use it next time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I edited this sentence:

"when Sweden officially ceded vast areas in current South-western Finland to emerging superpower"

Into: "when Sweden officially ceded vast areas in current South-eastern Finland to emerging superpower" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.70.209 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-write needed
IMHO I think this article needs quite a bit of revision because (a) generally seems quite disjointed and unclear (eg what's the "Dominions" section supposed to be about?) (b) but more fundamentally it seems to be more of an excerpt of Swedish history during the Great Power era. There's History of Sweden and spin-offs for that. I think there is a distinction to be made between talking about Sweden as a great power in the 17th century and specifically talking about the "Swedish Empire". One does not refer to the "Swedish Empire's" involvement in the Thirty Years War. References to the "Swedish Empire" in English are, I believe, generally limited to the issue of Swedish territorial control of the Baltic littoral.

Looking at the above posts, particularly from I suspect Swedish editors, I think this has been the cause of some confusion. I do not believe that English-language historiography refers to the "Swedish Empire" as a constitutional phase that Sweden went through, just as you might refer to the German Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire etc. It's more a thematic reference to one particular facet of Sweden during the Great Power era: i.e. its acquisition of Baltic teritories. At least. that's the case in English-language literature.

I think this article should be refocused on what was comprised within the "Empire" and how the Empire developed territorially. So I have in mind three sections: Origins (a brief introduction to Sweden and its territorial expansion prior to Gustavus Adolphus); History (a narrative from Gustavus Adolphus of how the territories were acquired and the eventual partial break-up after the Great Northern War.); Territories (a brief description of each of the territories - mainly an intro for a link to the main article on that territory).

Does anyone have a contrary view? I'll leave this up for a couple of weeks (as this article doesn't seem to get much traffic) before spending any time putting this into effect. DeCausa (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  10:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Empire → Great Sweden – To conform better to what the Swedes themselves call it. No king of Sweden has ever been called an emperor, thus no empire has actually existed. The term "Swedish Empire" is a misleading invention that does not deserve to be maintained or disseminated further. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. That's way off the mark. How would that conform with WP:COMMONNAME? What the period is called in Swedish isn't especially relevant since it is the term used in English-language historiography which is the key issue, per WP policies. I don't think "Great Sweden" has ever been used: in fact, I would suggest it isn't even "normal" English. Probably "Greater Sweden" would be better English, but even then it wouldn't conform to WP:COMMONNAME. Swedish Empire is a recognised and widely used term in English-language historiography. It's irrelevant whether individual editors think it is incorrect or illogical - that would be WP:OR - or even if it was a name that wasn't in official or actual use at the time, see Byzantine Empire. By the way, the question of an "emperor" is also a red herring. Empires can have Kings, see British Empire, and can even be republics: see French colonial empire.


 * As I said in the thread above the problem is "Swedish Empire" as used by English-language historians is not the same thing as Sweden in the Great Power era (as Swedes might call it). It's only a thematic aspect of Sweden in the Great Power era. I've come to the view that there should in fact be two articles. I think there should be a "Swedish Empire", but as I've outlined it above. Looking at History of Sweden, there does need to be a broader article on the "Great Power Era" with more or less this article's content. The best English language historiographical term is Sweden's Age of Greatness which is quite a common term with 16,200 items on Google Books, is broader than "Swedish Empire" and has the advantage of being fairly close to the Swedish term. This compares to 15,200 results for "Swedish Empire" on Google Books. Or more basically History of Sweden 1611-1721, but then that gets into an unhelpful argument about the exact dates. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts there is an article History of Sweden (1611–1648) and the story is then picked up again from 1721 with the badly named Age of Liberty. So there could in fact be a History of Sweden (1648-1721), with a lot of this article's contents transferred to that article and the 1611-1648 article, leaving the Swedish Empire article to focus on the territorial issues of the Baltic "empire", as I suggest in the thread above. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose the current proposal as nonidiomatic English. However, calling something an empire that wasn't is disturbing.  In line with comments above, why not standardise the history article titles in this period.  The current array, chronologically:
 * History of Sweden (1611–1648) → Swedish Empire → Age of Liberty → History of Sweden (1772–1809)
 * Proposal:


 * History of Sweden (1611–1648) → History of Sweden (1648-1718) → History of Sweden (1718-1772) → History of Sweden (1772–1809)
 * —  AjaxSmack  00:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Swedish Empire" is a term used by English-speaking historians to refer to this period, "Great Sweden" is not. See Cambridge Modern History, here and here. Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I just point out that historians (including the one's you cite) don't usually use the term Swedish Empire "to refer to this period". They use the term to refer to Swedish territorial expansion during this period. I know this sounds pedantic but I think mixing the two has created confusion. That's why I suggest there needs to be two articles: one for the period and one for the "Empire" itself. An analogy would be the British Empire article (which is specifically about the Empire itself, not a general history of the country during the imperial age) compared to the Victorian Era article. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:UCN/WP:UE per above. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Kauffner. Also, Merriam Webster defines Empire as "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially: one having an emperor as chief of state". (emphasis theirs) Furthermore, "Great Sweden" sounds like a derogatory term used against nationalistic history writing when translated into Swedish. Andejons (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How about a move to ? Sorry - ignore my misunderstanding. -- Trevj (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposer's comment ~ interesting comments, the most interesting being "it isn't even 'normal' English" and "the current proposal as nonidiomatic English", those in and about a language originating in Great Britain! Sincere best wishes to you all in finding a better name for this article. Regardless of (inappropriate albeit frequent) usage, empire is not a good term in this case. I'm out. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the term doesn't refer to the proper name of a sociopolitical body, shouldn't the article title be Swedish empire, with a lower-case E? BlindMic (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox
The infobox states "Today part of" and lists Togo and the United States. Where is this mentioned in the body of the article?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a separate article on Swedish overseas colonies. Zhmr (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't use an infobox intended for defunct countries. This article is about a specific period of time in the history of Sweden, not a specific state. Making claims about either establishment or disestablishment is just plain false. It was the same sovereign state before 1611 and after 1721.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, and I've reverted to you. The infobox isn't limited to "countries". It's widely used in other analogous scenarious. See Angevin empire and Hapsburg monarchy for instance. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are actually defunct states/dynasties/empires. I don't see why you're using them as an argument. This is merely the English term for stormaktdstiden, "the great power period". It's a traditional period of Swedish historiography, just like Age of Liberty.
 * And you simply can't use terms like "established" about this. Nothing actually happened to Sweden either in 1611 or 1721 that justifies such terminology.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * please don't edit war and pleae respect WP:BRD. This has been discussed before. Those other examples weren't defunct states at the time they are said to have ended in their respective articles. It's a characterisation of a specific period in their development. Just as this is. Btw, non-Swedish historizns often refèr to it as an "Empire" - it doesnt have to be a specicific state concept - it's a description of certain features. British Empire is an example of that. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The term of this article is a direct translation of a period established by Swedish historians. And I don't see how any of this is relevant to other stuff with the term "empire" in it. It's very clearly wrong in a way that none of the examples you've used are. Exact dates can be iffy, but at least the Hapsburg monarchy went through a very distinct change. That didn't happen with the Kingdom of Sweden in either 1611 of 1721. And I should note that British Empire certainly doesn't use this template.
 * And I don't actually see what this has to do with previous discussion. All of it seems to have been related to changing the name of the article. That's not what I'm trying to do here.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This has come up before in the sense that there's a cultural difference in Swedish historiography and English-language historiography in the terminology. You said to Hafspajen (if google translate is on the right lines, which is always doubtful) something about wanting to slap the person who translated stormaktstiden as Empire. But the point is, no one has. This article title isn't a direct translation of tge Swedish term. The leading English-language historian on the era Michael Roberts (historian) frequently refered to it as an Empire and being Sweden's imperial age eg one of his books is entitled "The Swedish Imperial Experience". It's not because anything constitutionally signified "Empire" but more to do with mind-set and international role. That's what I meant by the comparison with the British Empire. It didn't exist in the same way. My own theory is that the concept of "Empire" is unfamiliar to Swedish democratic impulses, whereas for British and even US historians it has more of a reasonance. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. I would like to slap him. Because he was careless enough to translate the name of a period into a noun. It's a very unfortunate choice from a strictly linguistic point of view. (And it is somewhat of an exaggeration.) But it has absolutely nothing to do with my modern attitudes towards the expansive, violent, fiscal-military state of 17th century Sweden. I have no illusions about what it was and what it stood for (merely the extent of its power). I don't disagree in any way regarding detailed explanations of Swedish imperial ambitions, but I do disagree with the idea of taking the actual name "Swedish Empire" so literally.
 * Why do you insist that the article should be describe something other than a historical period? The underlying model here is stormaktstiden and traditional Swedish historical periodization. Roberts didn't come up with this on his own and what term he chooses doesn't change things either. English-language sources are what we use to determine names, but they have no special elevated status in overall descriptions. The leading historians of Swedish history are quite naturally Swedish-speaking historians. Unless you have examples of the contrary, that is. The point is that English doesn't have a unique periodization of the history of Sweden, it only has unique terms for those periods.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been studying your last sentence, and I can't grasp what you mean by it. Could you expand. I'm simply trying to say that in English historiography generally (not just for Sweden) the term "Empire" is regularly used beyond its strict constitutional sense. Sweden had an Empire in exactly the same way as Britain or the Third French Republic had an Empire. No Emperor, but an Empire nonetheless. It's simply a standard English-language historiographical convention. Roberts took his terminology from that not from a (mis)translation of Swedish historiography. But you're right, the terminology within the article should be derived from the sources used in the article. I just took a look at the article to put together my killer point, confident the sourcing would be English literature, Roberts etc, and ... yikes there's virtually no sourcing. It's really bad. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd forgotten that I'd suggested a different approach to this article 2 years ago: see thread above Talk:Swedish Empire but didn't do anything about it. Essentially, I was saying that this article shouldn't be about a period, but a description of the essentially Baltic "empire". In the move discussion I said: "...there is an article History of Sweden (1611–1648) and the story is then picked up again from 1721 with the badly named Age of Liberty. So there could in fact be a History of Sweden (1648-1721), with a lot of this article's contents transferred to that article and the 1611-1648 article, leaving the Swedish Empire article to focus on the territorial issues of the Baltic "empire", as I suggest in the thread above". DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that seems like a very obvious POV fork based exclusively on English-language literature. That's not an acceptable solution since Swedish history and the concept of stormaktstiden is the basis for the English term. Swedish historians consistently talk of Sweden as a stormakt ("great power"), regardless of expansionism or minor colonial ventures. Besides Roberts, which historians literally describe Sweden as an empire as opposed to great powers like Prussia?
 * Peter Isotalo 08:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look through some of the results for Swedish Baltic empire on Google books (deliberately without quote marks around it: I'm not claiming 200k+ results are referring to this alone). I have to say that is the strangest description of a POV fork I've seen: that it is extensively treated in the English literature but not the Swedish! I have to repeat: this is not a concept derived from stormakstiden. This is a separate concept about teritorial control of the Baltic littoral. It's widely discussed in the English-language literature. DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not derived from stormaktstiden why are their respective timespans identical? And what would be the equivalent term among Swedish historians? Who has defined this specifically English-language concept?
 * Peter Isotalo 13:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a time span! That's the point: it's not the same thing. I'm not sure how I can put it more clearly. It's defined by historians who appear not to be Swedish: they are in the Google books search above. Did you look? These are reliable sources discussing Sweden's empire in the Baltic. It's no different to e.g. History of the United Kingdom/Victorian era and British Empire. These are parallel: one covers timespans the other is a (territorial) concept. What is the relevance of what term Swedish historians use in Swedish? There aren't even any Swedish historians cited in the article! DeCausa (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A Google Search is not a reference. It's really just a way of drawing your own conclusions. You need to actually explain how and why this is separate from the time period to which it happens to be identical. The comparison to the British Empire does not hold up. That happens to be a much broader concept that is widely recognized by British and non-British historians alike. I has a much history longer than any specific periods of British history and it has massive importance to areas all over the world. Your interpretation of the term "Swedish Empire" shares none of these traits. Even if you aren't citing Swedish historians, you can't pretend like they're irrelevant.
 * So where is the definition of the territorial concept that you're proposing, and why should it take over an article that is obviously about stormaktstiden?
 * Peter Isotalo 13:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring all the reliable sources that discuss it in the Google books search? "A Google Search is not a reference". There are dozens of references in that search. This is very simple. Dozens of reliable sources say Sweden had a Baltic Empire in the 17th century. Dozens of reliable sources say that the 17th century was an era when Sweden was a Great Power. They are not mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. And why should it take over an article "that is obviously about stormaktstiden"? Because this is what the article is called, that's why. What is the definition: it's set out in the numerous RS, but here's a convenient example: see page 72 DeCausa (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And I can find just as many examples in English that describe Sweden as a "great power". It's even in the source you just cited.
 * The current article explicitly says it's about stormaktstiden and the wikilinks are consistently to that topic in Swedish and several other languages. Previous comments on the talkpage have recognized this as a period rather than a literal empire, regardless of what term they prefer. You also haven't addressed the problem that Swedish historians simply don't use the concept of svenska imperiet, Sveriges imperium or anything like it, which means your pushing for undue weight. And I must say that most writing about the "Swedish Empire" appears to fall back on just one historian: Michael Roberts. He might be quite influential, but it's not like he's the only scholar out there.
 * I'm personally skeptical to the idea of having an article on the concept of a "Swedish Empire", but even if it's valid, you're quite simply campaigning in the wrong article. You don't have consensus for such a radical change of scope.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)Of course there are sources that refer to both: it's not mutually exclusive. Britain was a Great Power in the 19th century, AND it had an empire. (b) It's not undue: it's the norm except in perhaps Sweden. (c) Of course I don't have consensus! Otherwise, I would have just gone and done it. But that doesn't stop me ffrom trying to persude you. Obviously, I've failed. DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is indeed overlap in between Empire vs Great Power terms, but overall I would be inclined to describe Sweden during this time period as a Great Power rather than an Empire. In Sweden, as Peter has noted, is this time period is very rarely referred to as imperial, but rather stormaktstiden (which is literally Great Power Era). Some English sources do refer to it as Empire, and there are others from a similar era which are also described as empires (Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire, British Empire, Mughal Empire). Though describing Sweden as an Empire in the same vein as the preceding ones, with the possible exception of the Mughal Empire, seems a bit grandiose. Sweden was never a global power; even at its height it was a regional power in the Baltic sea with some minor overseas possessions.


 * However, I do think an infobox adds to the article, but there was never a sharp transition where the Swedish Empire was disbanded (or created) and split or united into constituent nations. So, perhaps naively, couldn't we resolve the disagreement by simply using Infobox country (as is used on Spanish Empire and Portuguese Empire articles) instead of Infobox former country? henrik  • talk  16:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one minor remark: on this question of whether "empire" is too grandiose a term, English-language historiography doesn't necessarily associate it with the extent of territory. For example, the Italian Maritime republics are often referred to as the Venetian and Genoese empires and I've already mentioned the Angevin Empire. It's a recognition of its piecemeal nature. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not too opposed to using the term Empire in a similar fashion as it's used today (the article also uses great power in places). But I don't think it makes sense for the infobox to imply the "Swedish Empire" had either predecessor or successor countries, or even years where it was established and disestablished. It was an era of the Kingdom of Sweden, not a separate sovereign entity. Eras usually have start and end years, but it's usually quite clear that those are approximate and somewhat arbitrary.


 * But, as was noted earlier, this article has far larger problems than either of those preceding points - five references in a 40K article? FA material this is not. henrik  • talk  18:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I for one have fallen in to the usual WP swamp: if I had put half the effort into finding citations for the article as I have in batting this back and forth with Peter, it might actually be an kmprovement. Mea culpa. DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's clearly room for disagreement due to the different terminology, so I think some discussion was inevitable.
 * I'm not a big fan of large infoboxes, but if we at least get rid of the "hard" dates, I'd say we're being more accurate. Also, I think we need to synchronize the wording of the article. Right now, it's very much focused on stormaktstiden but is still worded as though it was about a territorial entity. Btw, I don't see any reason why the imperial analysis (most of it seems to come from Roberts) can't fit within the frame of the traditional periodization. The establishment of the fiscal-military state obviously goes back to the reigns of Gustav I and his sons, not just the ascension of Gustavus Adolphus.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Recognized Eastern Orthodox minority
Unsourced for 2 months, I removed it from the infobox. Sweden at this time didn't have any religious freedom and the state certainly didn't recognize any minorty religion as strict High Church Lutheranism was practised. That is not to say that religious minorities didn't exist in eastern parts of the empire but their religion wasn't official. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Government form?
This article lists the government of the Swedish Empire as absolute monarchy, which I as a Swede find a bit peculiar since parlamentarism was fairly strong in the country for most of this time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.238.118 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweden at this time did have more power given to their King than any other time in Sweden (after Carolus Rex died, the country become a Constitutional Monarchy again) but yes they were not an Absolute Monarchy in any way. Azaan H 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement
"the empire was controlled for lengthy periods by part of the high nobility, most prominently the Oxenstierna family, acting as tutors for minor regents."

This makes no sense. I think that someone is confused about what a "regent" is. Lathamibird (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Flag
That flag is more like Sweden's war flag... Usually the modern flag that is used right now is used, just with darker blue. NakkiHousu (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles XII's titles
The article on Charles XII lists his titles as:

"We Charles, by the Grace of God King of Sweden, the Goths and the Vends, Grand Prince of Finland, Duke of Scania, Estonia, Livonia and Karelia, Lord of Ingria, Duke of Bremen, Verden and Pomerania, Prince of Rügen and Lord of Wismar, and also Count Palatine by the Rhine, Duke in Bavaria, Count of Zweibrücken–Kleeburg, as well as Duke of Jülich, Cleve and Berg, Count of Veldenz, Spanheim and Ravensberg and Lord of Ravenstein.[5]"

This implies the Swedish empire was in a personal union with most of what is now Germany, so why isn't that part included on the map of its maximum extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:20C:7500:84C5:4609:E521:305F (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope. Because there is a huge difference as to claiming regions and listing them in one's titles, and those regions actually being a part of such an empire. For instance Ravensberg, Jülich, Cleve and Berg were actually Hohenzollern territories since the early 16th century and were owned and ruled by the Margraves/Electors of Brandenburg (which would later become the Prussian kings). Bavaria was in hands of and ruled by a branch the Wittelsbachs. Charles XII never actually owned or ruled any of those regions. It's the same type of symbolic actions and claims which had the Kings and Queens of England and later Kings of of Great Britain claim to be King of France and this until 1800, and which the King of Spain today still claims to be Duke of Brabant, count of Flanders, Burgundy, and so on. Nobody in his right mnd would consider King George III of being the King of France, or king Felipe being the owner of parts of Belgium and northern and eastern France.-- fdewaele, 27 July 2021, 19:40 CET.

What is the "Swedish Empire"?
I have issues with this article similar to what Peter Isotalo raised above. To my mind, this article seems to combine two quite distinct concepts under this heading: Both these concepts can be useful, but mixing them is rather like trying to describe the British empire and the Victorian Era in the same article. There are quite a few things in that becomes needlessly unclear and confusing as a result.
 * 1) Sweden as a conglomerate state, with a Sweden proper and dominions. This fits with i.e. the lede, the infobox chosen, and referring to "Swedish Empire" as a state.
 * 2) The era when Sweden had status as a great power (and the rise to such a status). This fits with other parts of the article, such as the start and end dates, the given Swedish translation of "Stormaktstiden", and having the "Age of liberty" as the successor.

Andejons (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Logically the latter makes more sense and is in line with how the time period is discussed in Swedish references, I don't know if the presentation as a specific state on this article resulted from a difference in English usage or simply editors making it appear that way. TylerBurden (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the former country infobox
I don't entirely agree with the removal of this infobox. Having an infobox that shows what the Kingdom of Sweden was like during this era is helpful for readers, and is present on plenty of other articles discussing historical eras. Also, there was an actual change of governance upon the end of the Swedish Empire: from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary, constitutional one.

None of the actual information in the article needs to change, but I believe an infobox would be a great addition. 296cherry (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * An infobox that is about an historical era would be useful. But the mode of governance that you mention changed several times during the period, and it was only during the last years that there was an absolute monarchy. The confusion of eras with countries also meant that it was marked as succeded both by another era and by one country. Add to this other errors, anachronisms, etc, and the infoxbox was really well beyond saving. There is an that would be a far better match.
 * Andejons (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Above is my version of the infobox; I believe it fixes most of the problems associated with the previous one. If this doesn't work then a historical era infobox would probably be fine. 296cherry (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, except for the fact thet the royal coat of arms only had Vasa at it's heart until 1654. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Made some tweaks. 296cherry (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Made some tweaks. 296cherry (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Country infobox added
I made some final changes to the infobox I created in the prior discussion and added it to the main article. All information in the box is backed either by citations, Wikipedia Commons pages, or by the article itself. Below is my explanation for the changes I made from the infobox that was deleted from the article to the new one:

296cherry (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making such a nice infobox. I made the first one, and yours is so much better. Rhiz0id4 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Was Sweden really the only Nordic great power?
I don't believe that the statement in the lead, which proclaims that Sweden is the only Nordic country to have reached great power status, is accurate. Firstly, I can't find where it states anything like that in the citations provided (granted, the first one is locked behind a paywall so I can't know for sure). Also, several sources  support the notion that Denmark–Norway was, at certain points, one of the European great powers as well. Should the statement be removed or perhaps rephrased to state "Sweden was the only Nordic great power besides Denmark-Norway"?

296cherry (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Denmark-Norway's extent including practically uninhabited Greenland and little Iceland cannot be compared in any way to equal even nearly the power of the Swedish Empire. Page numbers or quotes please where anything ridiculous like that can be found! Not even the extensive Kalmar Union has been considered an empire, even before Denmark and Norway were left alone in it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Serge here. Two of the links point to what seems to be the relevant passage. In Smith, it's claimed that both Denmark-Norway and "Sweden-Finland" (a misnomer) were great powers at the beginning of the 19th century. At that point, they were at best second-rate powers. MacKillop and Murdoch instead point to Denmark at the beginning of the 17th century - a better choice, but still nowhere near the power and prestige of Sweden half a century later. The early Kalmar union that Serge pointed to would be a far better candidate.


 * Andejons (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There should be no "official" flag
I've removed the flag from the infobox since it's clearly misleading our readers in believing that early modern Sweden actually had an "official" flag. I don't see the same problem with the coat of arms, though I'm in favor of skipping that as well.

The major problem with this article topic and the infobox is that it represent a historical period but due to it's English name is basically masquarading as some sort of distinct and separate state entity.

I welcome discussion regarding this, but I'm strongly opposed to including any kind of flag in an infobox since the presentation is based on how modern states and their flags function. There's also the option of simply removing the infobox altogether since it's not intended for historical periods in the first place. Peter Isotalo 18:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Swedish Empire, in English, is considered just that, an empire, not a historical period. We shouldn't get too caught up in Swedish terminology, unless a proposal to move the article to a different name will be successful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Empire in English
The subject is considered an empire, not a time period, in English usage. If that is against the liking of enough users, I welcome a proposed name change to something else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @SergeWoodzing, the article is explicitly defined as a time period in the article and is the direct equivalent of stormaktstiden. What sources actually define Sweden 1611-1721 as an "empire"? Peter Isotalo 11:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No use discussing with anyone who reverts before talking here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A move request from Swedish Empire was closed as declined due to strong opposition un 2012 and nothing has changed since then. The revert-upon-revert made now is arbitrary POV, to try to put it diplomatically. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't made a move request or argued for a title change. The discussion regarding the move (proposed by you) is clear that everyone considered this the name of a period, not a former state or political entity.
 * So I'm not sure what it is you're actually opposing here. Peter Isotalo 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No that is not clear. I am opposing several recent arbitrary, undiscussed changes in text, reverted and immediately reverted back, removing the word "empire" throughout, and the only suggestion I've made is that anyone who does not want the word "empire" in the text should follow through with a move request. As long as the article has its current name (which I support), it's obvious that the word "empire" should be used in the text, rather than just "time period" (which is an irrelevant translation from the Swedish as far as established English usage goes). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Locating sources for the current title
I've been browsing the references used in the article and I'm having difficulties pinning down where the current title has been taken from. Which cited sources actually use the term "Swedish Empire"? Peter Isotalo 23:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick search shows the much used (in the article) reference Dumrath, Oskar Henrik (1911). "Sweden". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 188–221. as an immediate answer. Similarly a search of English language books reveals a number of titles which use the words "Swedish Empire". The term is also in use by the Swedish government at . ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @ThoughtIdRetired, can you specify the pages? Just so I understand which wordings you're referring to. Peter Isotalo 16:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , then edit find "empire" reveals 18 or so uses of the word empire, of which only two (from memory) refer to something else. There are two hits for the precise term "Swedish Empire".
 * The google books search gives plenty of titles that contain the term "Swedish Empire". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Google Books searches in of themselves aren't going to get us anywhere since it says nothing about how the term is defined or the quality of the sources. The first three hits in the search for "Swedish Empire" are either self-published or from publishers like Eken Press which we'd never accept as reliable sources. The risk of citogenesis is also very much a thing these days.
 * The word "empire" isn't a well-defined term. It can mean a lot of things and is often used in the more general sense of "A political unit, typically having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations (especially one comprising one or more kingdoms) and ruled by a single supreme authority." Dumrath does not at any point actually define what the "Swedish Empire" is, just that it refers to Sweden at some point when it was a "great power", which it also uses. EB 1911 is also a source which by any standard would be considered dated, or at least not one Wikipedia should rely on entirely.
 * The issue here is what "Swedish Empire" is actually supposed to mean and what it means for the scope of the article. The definition of an article topic should not fluctuate over time. Unless an article topic is very obscure, it shouldn't be a problem finding works that explicitly try to define its meaning. This meaning might vary between sources, but at the very least, the meaning should be clearly and intentionally stated. Peter Isotalo 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your view the word empire does not have a clear definition. (Incidentally, is Wiktionary an RS – surely it is not for the same reason that Wikipedia is not. Nevertheless, Wiktionary's definition seems reasonably OK.) The Oxford Dictionaries definition is quite clear, and it would have been clearer still to a Britannica editor writing in 1911. This might be why the term is not defined in the source as it is regarded as obvious.
 * The point taken from the Google books search is that the term is quite common. There are many more than three hits. Add that to the Swedish government website using it in their history section and there is no way that one can say that the term is not used. Do any of these writers define what they mean by "empire"? You would have to look – but I suggest that many of them might think the term is so well understood that it needs no explanation. In the article, the map is a pretty good definition. (All empires of this sort have geographical boundaries, however fuzzy the edges may be.) Perhaps more text on the matter is needed, perhaps not.
 * If you think that Dumrath is outdated, check the current version of Britannica. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the link to the Swedish Institute at first. That's not a "government" position, though. SI doesn't have anything to do with historical research and isn't tasked with defining Swedish historiography. That's what Swedish universities do.
 * Since there are no clear-cut sources to support the title or it's scope, I'm going to float the idea that "Swedish Empire" might be something that Wikipedia has pushed too far and that might be just one of several terms for the period that Swedish historians call stormaktstiden. It wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened. Peter Isotalo 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ThoughtIdRetired: That's not the definition used in this article. Here it is claimed that the term stands for an era. It's like saying that the British Empire and the Victorian Era are the same thing!
 * Andejons (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite right that the article currently gives a definition that goes against the usual main usage of the word "empire". That leads into what I suggest is the origin of this whole discussion, which deserves a new thread to the discussion, so is added below in the outdent. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that we have one user who does not like what the empire long has been called in English and wants to change everything in the article's text to remove that and adhere instead to what the Swedes call this in Swedish, but without moving the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we remove the references to it being a kingdom instead then? Since it was an empire?
 * For example shouldn't the text read:
 * "The Kingdom Swedish Empire during the Empire era at its height in 1658..." 2A02:1406:1:23F7:39FA:4650:1DC0:291B (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the problem: (1) The Swedish language word (stormaktstiden) for the subject of the article is time period based. (2) The English language term (empire) for the subject is largely geographically based. This difference between the two languages requires slightly different handling. Therefore here in English Wikipedia, for easy conceptual flow, the article should start a definition by giving the geographical limits and then the time period. It is not my concern how Swedish Wikipedia handles the matter, but I would guess that the opposite applies there. There are further consequences of the different terminology in the two languages elsewhere in the article, but none of these are particularly difficult to solve. As a start, I suggest the opening of the article should read something like:

The Swedish Empire (stormaktstiden, "the Era of Great Power") extended over a large part of the Baltic region during much of the 17th and early 18th centuries. At its greatest extent, it included [concise summary of the major added components needed here]. This gave Sweden the status of a European great power. The empire is usually taken to originate in the reign of Gustavus Adolphus, who ascended the throne in 1611, and its end as the loss of territories in 1721 following the Great Northern War.

I have left the description of the major components blank as there could be extensive discussions of how to name those elements (historic versus modern day identifiers) which are not really part of the point I am trying to make here.

I feel the word empire is well enough understood not to require definition – in detail there are a number of different sorts of empire (possibly as many as the number of empires?). This article should go on to describe sufficient of the characteristics to make clear the type of empire it covers. Perhaps the lead should make more clear that this empire originated largely (?entirely?) from conquest. The second paragraph of the lead would seem to fit better into a separate section titled "Historical background". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, not the Swedish Wikipedia, so at some point you need to accept that terms may be used differently than in Swedish. Establishing that this was more of an era rather than some kind of separate state is one thing, but there now seems to be an attempt to undermine the term "empire" in general. As far as I know in English the current WP:COMMONNAME for Sweden's era as a great power is what is currently being used. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe that the conceptual differences between "Empire" and "age" are large enough that they can not be handled in only one article. If the word "empire" is to be taken as a term that describe the inner workings of a state (as per e.g. Empire), the "history of Sweden as an empire" surely must begin in 1561 with Swedish Estonia, and have a rather long rump until 1815, with the loss of Swedish Pomerania. The year 1611 really is not very important with this perspective.
 * Andejons (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in English the WP:COMMONNAME is "Swedish empire". I do not see any difficulty with Sweden having overseas territories outside the time period stated in the article. If that rule applied, the British Empire would still exist because of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the Angevin Empire would also continue because of the Channel Islands. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The question that started this thread was about the meaning of "Swedish empire". It was claimed that definitions were not needed, as the meaning could be inferred from the words themselves. That is one possible approach, and then we are dealing with something along the line of the British empire, with a very broad scope, starting already in the fifteenth century, and in fact ending with a section that covers the remaining overseas territories. You are now instead saying that we are dealing with a set phrase, a name with a meaning which is not quite so directly derived from the individual words. That is also fine, but suggests that Angevin Empire is a better model. In that article, there is a good deal of discussion of the term itself, including how well fit it is, and were it originated. Furthermore, neither articles are replacements for articles such as England in the High Middle Ages or Victorian era.
 * Andejons (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that I had satisfactorily made the point that the detail of one empire is highly unlikely to be the same as another. Empires generally show a wide diversity of precisely how they work. (Conquest is, however, a common theme, as is the case here, with the outstanding military prowess of Gustavus Adolphus – something that seems strangely under-emphasised in the article.) This article started with the name "Swedish empire"; that is the common name by which it is known in English, and there are a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it where a change in name might make the link look rather odd in the context of the other articles. If the article as it stands does not answer the question "what is the Swedish empire?", then it needs more work in order to answer that question. If Wikipedia does need an article that covers some other concurrent aspect of Swedish history and it cannot be dealt with here, then the solution is to start another article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * But the problem seems to be that you haven't answered that question. The Britannica has been mentioned, but it never gives a definition, or a starting year, or anything like that. The likewise mentioned Swedish Institute doesn't give any clear answer. The Cambridge History of Scandinavia does not seem to use the term at all . Michael Roberts has a book with a title that suggests a different scope than the one used in the article: "The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560-1718".
 * Andejons (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The level at which I am answering is whether or not the article should be titled "Swedish empire" and to what extent that affects the structure and objectives of the article. The first part of that is largely a WP:COMMONNAME issue – for which there is evidence like the Swedish Institute website, but also many books, usages like this which is presumably written by a professional art historian (yes, I know the Latin title of the map says something different); and then looking in academic journals we have, – no doubt there is more to be found (I tried to skip articles that were not open access). A less clear-cut appraisal discusses the nature of the Swedish maritime empire. This high level approach is to counter the implication raised here that the term somehow originates in Wikipedia – but perhaps I misunderstood the remark that made me think that. I don't have continuous enough access to recent printed sources to go back and look for start dates suggested by the historians who use the term. I agree that the article does need a good reference for that. I suggest that it may be found outside the sources already used by the article. What I have learnt from quickly checking sources is that Swedish history does not seem to be a big topic in the books on European or, more specifically, Scandinavian history. This would not be the first time that Wikipedia editors struggle to find a source that defines a term that is widely used (e.g. Age of Sail). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thought, just want to stress that the term "empire" is not up for discussion here. It's the full term "Swedish Empire" as a proper noun that we're trying to figure out. You are trying to analyze the term based on your own views on the topic and that really just amounts to a kind of original research.
 * I've also started to look at more recent English-language sources about early modern Sweden, and like Andejons, I noted that "Swedish Empire" was completely absent from The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. When I search collections available through the Wikipedia Library for "Swedish Empire", I get some hits, but none that actually define the term. Judging by the context of when the term is used, the meaning varies and a lot of the uses are actually "Swedish empire" (not capitalized) in the general sense of a conglomerate of holdings across the Baltic or even its American and Caribbean colonies. There's the occasional reference to the term being equivalent to stormaktstiden, but nothing really consistent.
 * From what I can tell, "Swedish Empire" is just one of several terms used to describe Sweden during the height of its military power during the 17th century. This article been equated with stormaktstiden here on English Wikipedia since at least 2006, but it's unclear if this has been based on actual historical sources merely because individual editors thought it made the most sense. What I am strongly suspecting, though, is that Wikipedia has helped push the term "Swedish Empire" to a much larger prominence than it deserves. Not the same as Wikipedia inventing the term, but we've been promoting pretty much only one term for over 20 years. It would explain why the most prominent hits on Google Books are for low-quality sources like The Swedish Empire A History from Beginning to End while academic sources don't use it.
 * In my view, the only relevant scope for an article like would be the time period. Unlike the Dutch Republic or Second French Empire, there has been no distinct, separate Swedish state entity that can be called "the Swedish Empire". Today's Sweden is very different from the state that elected Gustav I as king in 1523, but there has never been a clean break with the past in the form of a revolution, radically new constitution or new form of government. Peter Isotalo 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Peter Isotalo, did you spot the two academic articles linked above (with bold text immediately before them, for visibility). There are others, but I linked only the open access articles that I spotted. Some of the academic articles that I did not link are dated to the 1940s. The Britannica article also substantially predates Wikipedia. Strictly speaking WP:OR applies to article content. Some exploring of the subject to determine if possible content makes sense is fine – otherwise what is the point of expecting editors to have a suitable level of background knowledge. If Wikipedia has two choices for an article name, it can only choose one of them. What are you suggesting – that we routinely rotate between the empire and the era solutions? I do not get the relevance of Today's Sweden is very different from the state that elected Gustav I as king in 1523, but there has never been a clean break with the past in the form of a revolution, radically new constitution or new form of government.? If that is meant to signify some sort of definition of an empire, it can be argued against with great ease – at its most concise, Sweden's empire ended on the battlefield. Any more than that and we will be back on the OR merry-go-round. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is another academic reference that uses the word "empire" with reference to Sweden. Interestingly I found this when searching for stormaktstiden in papers written in English. (This one was a hit because the word appeared in the title of some references, which themselves were written in Swedish.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * For completeness, I searched for – "Era of Great Power" Sweden – and got only one relevant hit. The rest were to do with NATO or the cold war. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course OR applies to the definition of entire articles. Claiming it's "only about content" is pure ruleslawyering. We're not discussing the word "empire" either.
 * The point here is that there is no distinct, clearly delineated state entity called "the Swedish Empire" that is separate from Sweden. But there is a historical period that is well-established in Swedish historiography that is (mostly) recognized as the topic of this article. It's the one preceding the Age of Liberty. It's usually considered to come after the early Vasa Period.
 * So what we really should be looking for are English-language sources that describe the standard periodization of the history of Sweden. In other words, what English terms are used for the period of about 1611-1721? Peter Isotalo 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo, you are narrowing the question asked in the heading of the section. This started as a request for sources that support the title of the article. I see that User:296cherry has given us such a source in the post made below. This is Roberts, Michael. The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560–1718 (The Wiles Lectures). The word "empire" is used liberally throughout this work, but here is one extract (page 27) "Thus the Swedish Empire was, after all, an empire of exploitation and enterprise, though not of private enterprise." (It is in a comparison with other contemporary empires, a prominent theme in the book.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking quickly at another of the sources already recommended, a more recent work is Lockhart, Paul. Sweden in the Seventeenth Century (European History in Perspective). Though the term "Swedish empire" is used frequently (even as a chapter heading), there are some instances when this author uses the term "stormaktstid". (e.g. pg 1-2: "During its brief career as a European state of the first rank – a period that Swedish historians have labeled the stormaktstid, or ‘great power era’ – Sweden would never achieve the heights of literary, artistic, scholarly, or commercial sophistication of states like England, France, Spain, or the Netherlands." He goes on to talk about Sweden's ability to wage war with minimal resources.) There might be some nuances in this book that suggest that "Swedish empire" and "stormaktstid" are not exactly the same thing – this may require a bit more study. Incidentally, this book commends the work of Michael Roberts, the author of the source discussed above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning me! I agree that it definitely is not "clear" that the term "Swedish Empire" only refers to a time period. In fact, it seems most common (at least, among the English scholarly sources I've read) to treat the Swedish Empire as a state entity. The possibility of "stormakstid" being a separate term is interesting, I'll need to look into that. 296cherry (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This source seems like it could be particularly useful in our search, but I can't get full access. Might need to get it from my local library. 296cherry (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that - it looks like it's more about Swedish and Finnish historiography than English.
 * In any case, I agree with Peter that "Swedish empire" should not be presented as formally different from "Kingdom of Sweden", as some parts of this article currently does. This is not a matter of Swedish or English sources: Sweden did of course undergo dramatic changes in the 16th and 17th century, but nothing so fundamental as for instance the Commonwealth of England (which I note is presented as a "political structure").
 * Sweden was of course also never an Empire in the most technical sense of having an emperor, so the word "Empire" is at best a matter of stipulative definition. One such definition is cited in Pihlajamäki, linked above: "large political units, expansionist or with a memory of power extended over space, polities that maintain distinction and hierarchy as they incorporate new people". The former half of the definition is of course opinion-based and not very useful for our discussion, but "distinction and hierarchy" is very easy to apply to the dominions of Sweden.
 * The way I see it, we need an article that is about the "History of Sweden 1648-1721" (there is already History of Sweden (1611-1648); a merge can of course be discussed), and we should probably have at least one that is about the attainment, ruling of and loss of the new areas. The current article has been about the intersection of these topics, but that means that important aspects are missed: the history of Sweden in the 17th century is about much more than rulers and wars and conquered territory, while the first part of the empire that was gained was Estonia in 1561, and the last part that was lost was Pomerania in 1815.
 * Andejons (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the Swedish Empire wasn't a formal, distinct state. Instead, I'm thinking of it more as a historiographical term (for example, the Burgundian State: it wasn't an official state and wasn't known as such at the time of its existence, but historians still regard it as an existing entity).
 * It doesn't really matter what we believe the definitions of the word "empire" are, it matters what reliable sources regard it to be. If a plurality of scholars consistently refer to the Swedish state during this time as the Swedish Empire, then Wikipedia must do likewise. 296cherry (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The tricky word is "consistently" - many sources use the phrase, but they also use simply "Sweden". The EB, for instance, use the phrase "Swedish Empire" once, but otherwise use simply "Sweden". It also once uses "Swedish Baltic empire", and titles the segment on the period 1611-1718 "The Age of Greatness" . Is that consistent use?
 * I don't mind the phrase per se, but it needs to be defined in some way. Either through the phrase itself, or the individual words. And if the phrase's meaning doesn't match that of the individual words, that is likely something that should be discussed in some manner (compare Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire).
 * Andejons (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked all the sources brought up in this thread and they make no claims about any separate state entity so it's good that we rule that option out. Half the sources don't use any combo of "Swedish" or "empire" (capitalized or not). Those that use "the Swedish empire" seem to refer to it mostly as "Sweden with conquered holdings", but aren't consistent in which time period they mean. Snickare (2022), for example, actually refers to Sweden's colonial holdings. The only sources that specifically defines "Swedish Empire" is Norrhem (2019) who simply equates it with the period stormaktstiden. Roberts (1979) compares Sweden with the empires of colonial France, Portugal, Spain, etc. but doesn't outright define the term. In the actual text, Robert uses the capitalized "Swedish Empire" exactly once (p. 27). All other uses are "the Swedish empire", even in map captions and judging by context, he means Sweden and its holdings as a great power, or during its path to becoming a great power.
 * Different sources on the history of nations are bound to use different terms. If we started look at sources on Swedish history in general, we'd most likely find a lot of different names depending on context and focus of the individual work. That Roberts uses "empire" in his 1979 work is because he explicitly describes what he calls "the imperial experience". The focus of his work is very much on the political and military expansionism. A work that is focused more on social, economic, cultural, etc. history might not consider the "empire" term relevant at all.
 * Regarding the 1648-1718 suggestion, I don't think we should try to make our own periodizations. The established periodization for Swedish history has a lot of flaws, but at least it's widely recognized. This article is already de facto about stormaktstiden and has been that way for years. I believe we should merge the 1611-48 content with this article or we'll have a cut-off point at 1648 that doesn't really correspond to any widely used period, at least none I've ever heard of. Peter Isotalo 08:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which "option" do you mean that we can rule out? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That there was a separate state entity distinct and clearly delineated from Sweden. In other words, that Erik XIV, Christina and Carl XVI are all monarchs of the same state, but at different points in its history. Peter Isotalo 17:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see where anyone has claimed that there was. The era is called Stormaktstiden in Swedish, but practically always the Swedish Empire in English. Why I do not know, but one single user's personal opionions cannot change the fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above. Your "practically always" claim isn't supported by sources.
 * Currently, you are yourself pushing "one single user's personal opinion". Start paying attention. Peter Isotalo 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wording of article text
Aside from some capital E's (which should go) what should be done about this arbitrary and undiscussed reversal? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article should revert back to the "empire" utilising version, as that gives a sense supported by the sources that I have consulted. (To be clear, these are not sources currently cited in the article, but potentially could be used as such.) Without that reversion, the article reads rather strangely. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @ThoughtIdRetired, the wording has been reverted by a third user. I don't agree with the change but I'm not interested in discussing this tiny detail. The focus has to be on resolving the verifiability of both scope and title or the article.
 * We can continue the debate about individual words when we've resolved the larger issue. Peter Isotalo 21:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed the header for the monarchs. "Swedish Empire" was never an official thing you could be monarch of. I think some of the other changes Peter introduced also were improvements, but of a lesser degree.
 * Andejons (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The use of "of" there was perfectly correct English even for the time period (e.g. writers of the 20th century), but the change is OK. The word corresponds in such usage not only with Swedish av but also with från. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the "Swedish Empire"?
Not entirely sure what definition we're operating from. Does "Swedish Empire" refer to:

A) A historical period/era, doesn't refer to state structure.

B) An actual state entity (even if it wasn't called an empire at the time of its existence)

Both definitions seem supported by various sources (although I found a lot more for option B). 296cherry (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's the topic of discussion above pretty much. Feel free to join the main thread. Peter Isotalo 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallery of monarchs
I cannot see how it could be an improvement to remove a gallery which is warranted in this case for concise comprehensive info to the reader about who the monarchs were during this period. It takes some work to put a gallery together (with images other than those in the text). Easy-peasy to waltz in and trash it. Reverted removal. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There are already five monarch images in the article and a complete list of monarchs in the infobox. And the article isn't actually about monarchs but a period of Swedish history.
 * Pretty sure that a monarch gallery on top of that is what WP:IG is referring to as "shoehorning" images. If it was a straight up list with dates and links, it would make sense, but this just looks purely decorative. Peter Isotalo 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted removal again. No consensus to remove gallery. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've reverted edits by two separate users and have not attempted to actually discuss it. You're thrashing about with personal attacks and complaints about how unfairly you are being treated that borders on the immature. In the thread below, you're accusing others of "arbitrary, unsourced" claims while not providing a single source for anything. Peter Isotalo 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are all supposed try to follow guidelines such as "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating" and avoid personal attacks like "thrashing about with personal attacks and complaints about how unfairly you are being treated that borders on the immature". At times, we all need to try harder.
 * As to the matter at hand: the personal opinions of one single user is not enough to remove info valuable to a reader from any article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut it out, Serge. Your concern about civility is disingenuous. You've been doing nothing but rag on my motivations over perceived slights. You're simply being a dick and crying about having it pointed out. Peter Isotalo 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks per definition. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallery heading
This unneccessary reversal leads to the assumption that the use of the word "of" is not fully understood by some editors from Sweden, where the Swedish word av can be distracting when writing in Engish. In both examples "Authors of the United States" or "Authors of the Elizabethan era" the English word "of" is used quite correctly. The heading, as currently worded after this reversal, now makes the gallery look irrelevant. I will reverse this unless someone can give us a good reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @SergeWoodzing, these are just personal musings about that virtually all native Swedish-speakers are less competent in English than you. How about you join the discussion above and present or comment on sources like everyone else? Peter Isotalo 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the issues, the article, without attacking any particuar user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the article, not on any other user. When it comnes to language, try to be knowledgeable as to who's who and who knows what. One good idea is to find out who has what language as a first language, if that's relevant to article content. Whatever is not relevant to article content, if it concerns another user's behavior, belongs on that user's talk page or in a report about the user's behavior for administrative attention, not on an article talk page. Article talk pages are not for irrelevant animosity and bickering among users about their behavior. We all need to try to remember that and act accordingly. It's not always easy, but at least we should try --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been firing off snippy personal comments aimed directly at me in most of your comments and edit summaries for the past few weeks. As far as I'm concerned, you're engaging in low-level harassment while contributing absolutely nothing relevant to either the article or this talkpage. If you think I'm being unfair, take me to AN/I. Peter Isotalo 19:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. Article talk pages are not for irrelevant animosity and bickering among users about their behavior. We all need to try to remember that and act accordingly. It's not always easy, but at least we should try. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Charles IX of Sweden
I oppose the arbitrary, unsourced inclusion of King Charles IX as a monarch of the Swedish Empire. He was not that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Country infobox for a historical period is actively misleading
I removed the infobox. This article is not about a former country but a historical period. There's an ongoing dispute about the scope of the article and there are exactly zero sources to support the idea of a separate state entity called the "Swedish Empire". The infobox is attracting all kinds of facts of dubious relevance, especially the idea that a 17th century state of any kind had "official" flags, languages, currency, etc. Claims like this are assuming that official standards existed at all hundreds of years ago.

On top of this, the presence of the infobox is skewing the article towards the unsupported claim of a separate, distinct state entity that supposedly popped into being at one point and then disappeared.

I don't believe the article can be described as neutral as long as it includes a former country infobox. Peter Isotalo 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We definitely need to hold some kind of RFC as the previous discussions over this topic don't seem to be going anywhere. I think the main problem with these discussions is the absolute lack of sources on this topic as a whole. It's a shame we have to rely on sources published over a century ago or sources written in Swedish language only. 296cherry (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to an RfC as such, but what are we supposed to ask about? The only scope that fits this article is the time period called *stormaktstiden*. That's what the lead has stated for quite a while and there's no other sourced topic that actually fits the content.
 * To provide a hypothetical as illustration: if someone started filling "Great Power Period" or simply stormaktstiden with content, wouldn't we just consider it an unnecessary content fork? Peter Isotalo 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What we do have is definite frequency where the period in English is called the Swedish Empire by a majority of academic sources. The rest is, and is likely to remain, unclear. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Provide a summary sources to back up your claims, please. That's what the rest of us have been trying to do in the above discussions. Peter Isotalo 15:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why repeat what others already have done, upon which I think we can rely? Isn't this discussion loing enough already? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * User:TwinBoo: please explain how the useage of infoboxes in other articles justifies the one here. The infobox you introduced contains erroneous statements about how Sweden was governed, an "official language" 300 years before one was adopted, a very anachronistic ISO code, as well as details that were only true for parts of this period. There is template:Infobox historical era that seems much better suited here that does not have this king of superflous and misleading details, apart from the navigation box.
 * Andejons (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you insist that a country infobox isn’t suitable for any historical entity and that it shouldn’t be used on any pages, despite the fact that such is used for pretty much any historical country page, such as:
 * First French Empire, even though it theoretically wasn’t much different from the ever-changing first republic.
 * Furthermore, the Bourbon Restoration in France is just a period of time in the Kingdom of France and has its own infobox.
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has its own page and infobox despite the fact the modern United Kingdom is a rump state with no large difference.
 * Pretty much every dynasty of the Byzantine Empire has their own pages, with, you guessed it, infoboxes, eg. Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty, Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty or Byzantine Empire under the Isaurian dynasty.
 * There is also what I’ve previously mentioned, like the Kingdom of Hungary pages, most of which are really the same country, but each have their own infobox.
 * I could go on and on, but you get the point.
 * I realise now that some of the details in the infobox I created had inaccuracies, but Wikipedia isn’t about reverting anything that you don’t agree with, but trying to help each other. I will fix those that you have mentioned if they haven’t been already; also, next time you’re correcting someone, try to be a little less condescending. I’m not sure if it was intentional but a few of your comments were quite aggressive. —TwinBoo (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)