>All blue is clay that was simultaneously controlled by Sweden

>>3397108
Swedish steel and the decline of Poland.

>>3397108
Weak neighbors mostly, Poland-Lithuania was large but pretty passive as a military power, and an internal political system that was often hijacked by foreign powers being an elective monarchy.

Russia didn't enter the stage until the early 1700's, and once they were in a position to move in, Peter pushed Charles XII's shit in and took the Baltic for Russia.

more importantly how did they manage to lose it all even Finland?

>>3397560
With stupidity.

>muh honor gonna kill everyone instead of trying diplomacy surrendering some lands

File: 4C772FD5-544D-4D2C-B1B9-B91DF0037CDF-13209-00000FFF3D9D8F41.png (365KB, 863x1080px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 863x1080px

>>3397108
Who owned northern Norway? The Danes? Sami?

>>3397560
Sweden didn't have manpower for shit and didn't really bother defending anything beyond Sweden itself properly. At worst Finland was occupied by Russians for decades, her lands looted and people enslaved and sold to Turks.

>>3397670
Oh I don't know. Norway maybe?

>>3397670
Norway was under Denmark at the time IIRC. So even though Norway was cleaved in two the northern part was still under Denmark as well.

>>3397131
>Weak neighbors mostly, Poland-Lithuania was large but pretty passive as a military power, and an internal political system that was often hijacked by foreign powers being an elective monarchy.

Why didn't Poland ban foreigners from running for king-grand duke?
maybe we're too deep in the age of nationalism, but the fact a foreign noble could be *elected* as your king sounds silly
the PLC had their own aristocracy, like 10% of the population was nobility - I know a lot of them were petty landlords who were 'noble' by legal technicality, but the szlachta at-large could be an electorate while only the higher nobles could stand for office?