Talk:Charles XII of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Sweden The article on Charles XII of Sweden is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Pointing Towards Russia

The image caption 'Charles pointing towards Russia' does not need an exclamation point after it. This is Wikipedia not Allers Veckotidning.

[edit] Constantinople vs. Istanbul

As far as I know the city was called Constantinople until 1930, it's inapropriate to call it Istanbul in an 18th century context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.84.163 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) After the conquest in 1453, it is appropriate to call it Istanbul because the Ottomans changed the name after the conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.26.2 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they did not. It was informally called Istanbul in Turkish, but Constantinople remained the official name until 1930. It was certainly universally used in the west until 1930. john k (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ottomans 'changed' the name after the conquest, since the date in question is after 1453, it should be called as "Istanbul". Perhaps it is your "western" view that makes you accept that it is not. So, according to your argument, you are also claiming that Wikipedia is a western project, and you have to name it how it is called in "west". (what do you mean by "universally used in the west"? is it universal or is it western? it made me laugh a lot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.26.2 (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Ataturk changed the name in 1930. Before that it was often informally called "Istanbul," but the official name - used by Ottomans and westerners alike - was Constantinople. In the west, it was universal to call it "Constantinople." In the Ottoman Empire itself, it was sometimes called Constantinople and sometimes Istanbul, but the former in formal contexts, the latter informally. Today, a few scholars, primarily scholars of middle eastern history, will call it Istanbul after 1453, but most, so far as I can tell, call it Constantinople down to 1930. This is particularly true for historians of the west, and Charles XII is a part of European, not middle eastern, history. And of course, as an encyclopedia written in English, the English Wikipedia is a project which ought to give greater weight to usage in English than to usage in Turkish. john k (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as in the Byzantine era it was informally known as Stan Polis - "the City" - which is where "Istanbul" derives from. Michael Sanders 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But in any case, the name used in this article should be the name most commonly used to refer to the city in this period by historians. If most, as John says, call it Constantinople, that is the name that should be used. Michael Sanders 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Usage is mixed, and there's more usage of "Istanbul" than there used to be, but Constantinople still predominates, I think, particularly in works written about European, rather than Middle Eastern, history. If this were an article about Ahmed III, there might be some claim to using Istanbul, but not in one about Charles XII. john k (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazis and Charles' assasination

For a reason which has never been entirely clear to me, Scandinavian Neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists celebrate the anniversary of his assassination. Could someone elaborate? Asav 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

They regard him as a great patriot and national hero.

Funilly enough, Karl XII was for a long time very unpopular with conservatives (who felt he lost the empire) and popular with the left/social democrats. So, the extreme right's affinity for him is of very recent date. It might have originated during WWII, when the Swedish extreme right, who saw Soviet Bolshevism as the greatest threat to Sweden (not Nazi Germany), saw Karl XII as a symbol of the fight against the Russians.

I'll try to find the source where I read this and post a link here (or give you more info if you don't read Swedish). Also, I think it's really only the Swedish extreme right who like him, hardly the Danish or Norwegian extreme right (since he fought against them). Osli73 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of natural affinity. Karl XII has traits that would strongly suggest a less than symphatic character. The inability to keep peace. Ruin for his nation. Wast loss of land. Just take a look at the map. While in Turkey his behaviour prompted The Turkish to give him house arrest. It is hard to avoid concluding that Karl XII was a psychopath. I cannot think of a worse King the Swedes ever had. He shares a lot of the traits of plain Fascists of modern time. Neo-Nazi is just a label for Fascist. Fascists tend to like Fascists. Nothing surprising here.

The murder of Karl XII is seen as a good patriotic deed regardless of the assasin being Swedish or Norwegian. Karl XII is simply a liability for all. Karl XII has lost Finland to the Russians who keep Finland occupied from 1714-1721. He attacks Denmark. Not mentioning Estland and Latvia. Now he is going for Norway. It is cold and dark with Christmas approaching. Who wants to go home? Why not just do it and keep shut about it? Chances are nobody will ever find out if I can keep a secret. Who needs Karl XII? Motive, Means and Opportunity. Karl XII was shot between 8 and 9 on the evening sunday 30 november 1718. The bullett was 18-20 mm wide. He was hit from the left temple to the right temple. Instant death. Clearly the work of a good hunter. A bullet from a Norwegian cannon 625 meters away? You be the judge :-) Read about it at: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_XII Whoever put him out is the real hero. Work well done. Put up a statue for him. Jimoksvold 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Most of this is just plain wrong. Charles XII actually never started a war, so "the inability to keep peace" is simply misleading. Neo-nazis like him because they do not know who he was, only that he fought Russia. That's sufficient in those circles. As for the "assassination" that's just speculation, the alternatives are certainly more numerous than murder or a bullet from 625 meters. I would also suggest that the article needs some work, as a previous user stated Poland certainly wasn't part of the original coalition against Sweden and the reasons for the English and Dutch involvemnet in the operations 1700 was entirely different than what's stated.130.236.83.55 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Poland was NOT part of the coalition attacking Sweden. Augustus started the war as king of Saxony and tried to involve Poland in war, without much succeses. After Narva POlish senate even sent congratulations to Charles! However, he attacked Poland in 1701 therefore ending this neutrality (paradoxically, many Poles still considered themselves neutral even before Kliszow, to the point that Lubomirski only faked fight and then immedietely withdraw from battle) Szopen 10:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl vs Charles

I realize Charles is the English version of Karl and that Wikipedia is supposed to use the English names for all things. However, lots of other Karls have gotten to keep their native version of the name. Some examples below:

  • Karl X Gustav
  • Karl Marx
  • Karl of Austria
  • Karl Malone (the basketball star)
OMG. It's 'Carl Gustav', not Karl Gustav. Good research there, dude. Ahem. LOL

Is Karl XII really better known as Charles XII? Which version of the name should Wikipedia use? KarlXII 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I, a humble Norwegian would like to suggest that searches of both should point to this article. As for the name I would leave that decision to others. Jimoksvold 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Er...Charles X Gustav of Sweden is not at "Karl". Charles XII, at any rate, is normally known in English as Charles XII. Comparing him to non-monarchs is pointless, because the names of non-monarchs like Karl Marx are rarely, if ever, anglicized. The Malone comparison is even more ridiculous, because he's an American who is named Karl. In terms of Emperor Karl of Austria, that is a tough call, I think, and could easily go either way. It's worth noting that the more recent the monarch, the less likely anglicization is. Charles XII is very rarely referred to in English as anything but "Charles XII." john k 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No he is not 'at Karl'. He's 'a Carl'. Goodness - do you people write Wiki articles too? No wonder there's so much cleanup all the time.

"Demirbaş", "the Habitué"? I read the book written by Voltaire about Charles XII. I think the translation of "Demirbaş" as "the Habitué" is incorrect. Literally, "Demirbaş" means in Turkish "Iron Head", ie stubborn.

Sounds right.

[edit] Hmm

And we're positive he wasn't not gay? Arthurian Legend (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misogyny?

Is it notable enough? If so, where- here or a misogynist-type-list? It's pretty subjective, though can be sourced, both secondarily and primarily (his own unambigious quotes?). See also: casus anti-semite (extinct- slander?), liberals (alive and kickin'- slander in a large segment of the media market)...? I wouldnt simply write it off as "closet" homosexualism" as some biographers, based solely on his aversion to women, whereas an idealism- not too much unlike Kant's empiricism- is the most palpable cause.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.224.52 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)