Talk:Norway during the Great Northern War

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

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

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

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Untitled[edit]

Much of the Norwegian phase of the war would be minor trivia on the larger "Great Northern War" page.

And yet the Norwegian role is of some interest to a subset of folks (of which I am one).

That said, Norway campaigns and activities could be handled as some subarticles linked from a "Great Northern War" section.

What is the criterion for making such a transition?

William Borg

There's no hard and fast rule. The general guideline is that the article name should be something that is generally recognized so that people would look it up under that name. "Great Northern War" would clearly fit that criteria. Google shows no hits for "Great Northern War and Norway" (in quotes) so it's probably not a very good title. Now if "Great Northern War" grows so much that it needs to be split then subarticles makes sense. (See diamond - it started as a small article and now has many subarticles like diamond enhancements and diamond industry). At the very least Great Northern War should link here. Otherwise no one will find this article. I've removed the merge flag and leave it to you the subject matter expert to decide. Samw 02:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will change. Need to sort it through and figure out how to best integrate (and reference) from the main page. Williamborg 02:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, is there any kind of concensus about whether or not to merge this article into the main one? At a minimum, it seems a bit unnecessary to also mention all of the other parts of the war also in this article (as it does now when it mentions Poltava, etc.). I strike to merge it.KarlXII 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any significant discussion (discussion is supposed to close in a week), we closed the discussion in April (open for months) and removed the merge recommendation a while ago. At one point we tried to incorporate portions of this article into the Great Northern War article. That got edited out—apparently considered to be rather a minor side campaign—which is somewhat surprising since the death of KarlXII was clearly an important development. I'd be happy to concur in a merge if you can get the bulk of this article into the main article and get it to stick; good luck.

Myself, I think it should be retained with a strengthening of the Dano-Norwegian campaign discussion in the main article and this article should serve as a reference for more detail. I have substantially more detail that probably merits inclusion, but is only of interest to those engrossed in military historical detail plus perhaps Swedes and Norwegians from the areas involved.

Cheers - Williamborg 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's been a year since I last tried to inject this material into the larger article. So I've tried again. If it sticks, we'll kill off this article. Williamborg 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The guardians of concise articles that only deal with history as I view it struck within minutes of moving some of the more relevant material there. Williamborg 03:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank's for trying.KarlXII 01:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is somewhat POV, ie the GNW from the alled view point. I also believe it contains four errors, 1) IIRC, Denmark declared war on 1709 as a consequence of Poltava and not 1706, 2) peace didn't endure after 1721, IIRC three more wars were fought between Denmark and Sweden, 3) I think the description of how Karl XII's logistics worked are incorrect, 4) I believe the dates given for the founding of St Petersburg are wrong. However, I'm not completely certain so I desisted from editing the article.

The article on GNW states 1709 as the year for Denmark's reentry so I changed those dates. What is Wikipedia's policy on spelling of place names? Bohuslän is the Swedish name and the province was Swedish then as well as now.

The article on St Petersburg states 1703 as the founding date for Petersburg, so I changed it.

Bohuslän are Båhuslen in the norwegian language, but had a few names in the history. I not known if the residents of Bohuslän were in guerrilla war with the swedish, for that is from the war in 1675-1679, "Bohusiska Kriget". The swedish problem with the supplies come from the war plan of the attack on the Norway, Carl XII will go first to the Christiania and then have the supply chains on the way- from south. The norwegian fortresses in south, not the guerrilla, had denies Carl XII his supplies. That was not much provisions after the winter in the country or the city Christiania for a big army on 8000 men. The norwegian army wanted not a battle with the swedish army. Carl XII wanted that for a quick victory in the campaign. After the danish-norwegian warships come to the fortresses and Drammen, must Carl XII withdrew to the south and tries a siege of the fortress Fredriksten. The siege cannons was in the ships on the way to Dynekilen. Sorry my bad english, but I am a norwegian. (85.164.175.151 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]