Naruto Discussion Forum

Naruto Discussion Forum (http://forum.naruto.viz.com/index.php)
-   Omniverse (http://forum.naruto.viz.com/forumdisplay.php?f=130)
-   -   Singleverse: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf (http://forum.naruto.viz.com/showthread.php?t=127467)

Ninja of Cao 02-28-2013 06:31 AM

Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Two leaders who gave rise to their nations as world-dominating empires, both famous throughout their history as great heroes. Who would win in an all-out war? The man who was known as the father of modern warfare and waged war on the entire Catholic world with revolutionary warfare, or the queen who defeated the Spanish armada and paved way for the rise of the British Empire?




Scenario: The year is 1600. Queen Elizabeth I and Gustav II Adolf have annihilated the Catholic threat together, but the Virgin Queen and the Lion From the North has now realized that the differences in their religions are too great, and that Europe can only be ruled by one empire. In the spring of 1600, Queen Elizabeth sends her armada into the Baltic Sea to invade the young Swedish Empire. Gustav II Adolf, however, is confident that he can stop the invasion and launch a successful counterattack just like he did with the Holy Roman Empire. Who will be victorious?

Comparison:
Spoiler:

Statistics Gustav II Elizabeth I
Army size: 150,000 600,000
Empire: Swedish English
Government: Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy
Commander: Gustav II Robert Dudley
Army setup:

Gustav II Adolf
19,584 infantry (musketeer line tactics)
3,250 cavalry (shoot-and-charge tactics)
127,166 peasants (50% pikemen, 50% musketeers)
16 galleons
12 corvettes
(28 ships in total)

Elizabeth I
18,000 infantry (pike square tactics)
2,000 cavalry (hit-and-run tactics)
580,000 peasants (50% pikemen, 40% archers/crossbowmen, 10% musketeers)
6 galleons
60 corvettes
60 armed merchant vessels
20 gunboats
(146 ships in total)

My own conclusion:
Spoiler:

Gustav II Adolf, the Lion From the North, was considered the father of modern warfare. He revolutionized warfare in the 1630's while Elizabeth had an average military in the 1590's. Some Swedish advantages were an offensive cavalry compared to European hit-and-run riders, a disciplined line infantry, extremely mobile and fast-shooting artillery, and the world’s most powerful warships. Queen Elizabeth might be able to overcome the Swedish navy with sheer numbers and better experienced crews, but there is no way for her inexperienced army of peasant pikemen to defeat the Swedish line infantry. Gustav II Adolf scored a 3:1 kill ratio against the mightiest empire of his time, which was 40 years ahead of Elizabethan England. Gustav II Adolf was also a far superior military commander, being ranked equal to (or sometimes ahead of) Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar. He turned a weak country with a small population into Europe’s most powerful military nation, and foresaw warfare that was more than half a century into the future. Of course, Elizabeth has a numerical advantage, but she cannot possibly send her entire force to Sweden and leave the homeland unprotected. She will lose because she is on the offensive, has a force that is greatly inferior in terms of quality and experience, is an inferior commander herself, and a much smaller and less effective cavalry force.
Final conclusion: Gustav II Adolf will win.


Notes: Elizabeth I died when Gustav II Adolf was still 9 years old. For this scenario, both leaders are at their physical and mental prime when they won their greatest victories, meaning that Gustav II Adolf is 37 years old (during the Battle of Breitenfeld), and Elizabeth is 55 years old (during the defeat of the Spanish Armada). Let’s say that they have these ages in the year of 1600, but with the technology, tactics and experiences of their said ages.

Maruko 02-28-2013 07:14 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Her army is all peasants. :lol:
But such a difference in numbers could mean a lot. Doesn't matter if they're peasants.

Ninja of Cao 02-28-2013 10:51 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Maruko (Post 6534785)
Her army is all peasants. :lol:
But such a difference in numbers could mean a lot. Doesn't matter if they're peasants.

Well, Gustav II Adolf scored a 3:1 kill ratio against the greatest empire of his time, which had a much more advanced military than Elizabeth. So I think that he will have at least a 6:1 kill ratio if she tries to invade Sweden, added to the fact that the Swedes can utilize effective guerrilla warfare in the forests, and that the English will not be used to fighting in such a cold country. The few guns the English do have probably won't work in the wet and cold climate, so it all comes down to the English making a pike and sword charge against the Swedish lines of cannons and muskets.

Shisko Shi 03-05-2013 08:31 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Gustav can't do shizz!!! He was part of the stuipied Holy Roman Empire and just a prince. He is weak compared to France and England.

Elizebeth not perfect but good. Use someone like Charles the I who had SPain, And most of the Holy Roman Empire and Was the Holy Roman Emprer even though that gives him no power but still!
This is a kill.

Don't remember, but the prince incontrol of the land were Berlin is will kill Gustave.

England wins.....

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 10:36 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi (Post 6546014)
Gustav can't do shizz!!! He was part of the stuipied Holy Roman Empire and just a prince. He is weak compared to France and England.

Elizebeth not perfect but good. Use someone like Charles the I who had SPain, And most of the Holy Roman Empire and Was the Holy Roman Emprer even though that gives him no power but still!
This is a kill.

Don't remember, but the prince incontrol of the land were Berlin is will kill Gustave.

England wins.....

Gustav II Adolf was king of the Swedish Empire and responsible for the devastation of the Holy Roman Empire - what makes you claim that he was a prince of the Holy Roman Empire? `|( He is celebrated as the father of moden warfare and had the world's most effective army in the 1630's. Napoleon at the height of his power called Gustav II Adolf "the only man in history superior to myself", and his teachings of battlefield mobility and combined arms warfare are still used today. Gustav II Adolf invented field artillery and massed volleys in a way that revolutionized warfare for two centuries - claiming that he was a weak military commander is like denying the existence of the sky.

Shisko Shi 03-05-2013 11:01 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Oh lol I got Switzerland confused.. Always do. ANyways Him self was not all that powerful. Besides what he did in warfare was not as to his power on the field.

Elizibeth was not a powerful Ruler. She her self. ROSE Enland to become a Superpower by using suders and staying a Virgin.

She was not powerful at the time in military standered. At lest compared to others. But to Gustav there is a chance.

But with the English Channal that will serve her well and all she needs to do is wait there. As Gustav will not be used to traveling through the English Channel.

Also the Catholic threat was with the help of a King before her. She her self did not really do alot to take the so called 'Threat' out to make a big diffrence.

Other then G and his tatics. The dominint force on the water is England and the English Channel that will serve them well.

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 11:42 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi (Post 6546210)
Oh lol I got Switzerland confused.. Always do. ANyways Him self was not all that powerful. Besides what he did in warfare was not as to his power on the field.

Elizibeth was not a powerful Ruler. She her self. ROSE Enland to become a Superpower by using suders and staying a Virgin.

She was not powerful at the time in military standered. At lest compared to others. But to Gustav there is a chance.

But with the English Channal that will serve her well and all she needs to do is wait there. As Gustav will not be used to traveling through the English Channel.

Also the Catholic threat was with the help of a King before her. She her self did not really do alot to take the so called 'Threat' out to make a big diffrence.

Other then G and his tatics. The dominint force on the water is England and the English Channel that will serve them well.

If you read the scenario more carefully it says that England is on the offensive, sending all their troops and ships into the Baltic Sea where a 30 years more advanced navy awaits them.

EDIT: Gustav II Adolf's ability as a military commander was unsurpassed for centuries to come... in some ways he still have not been surpassed, because no leader after 1632 has ever affected warfare as much as he did. Besides that he could lead his army to amazing victories against Europe's most powerful nation. For example, he landed in northern Germany with only 13,000 men while the Catholic League could summon hundreds of thousands of soldiers into battle (around 500,000 is the most common number). The result was a devastating Swedish victory, the destruction of 20% of the Imperial army and damages that would keep the HRE out of power for many generations.

Raiden 03-05-2013 11:55 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
This scenario makes no sense, it's really out of Elizabeth's character to attack, Sweden rapes, this is like me saying "Good ol Gorge W Bush jr sends the invincible US Marine corps to attack Gustav II Adolf and his horde of marry man"

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 11:58 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiden (Post 6546314)
This scenario makes no sense, it's really out of Elizabeth's character to attack, Sweden rapes, this is like me saying "Good ol Gorge W Bush jr sends the invincible US Marine corps to attack Gustav II Adolf and his horde of marry man"

Then tell me another famous military leader of similar technology that could be compared to Gustav II Adolf. It was either Elizabeth I or Tokugawa Ieyasu, but if you can present me with another alternative then I'd be happy to hear it `:))

Raiden 03-05-2013 12:03 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
How about we just even it out, like make it in a open field (The ships to me seem overkill), or lets just ask Deadliest warrior to make a episode of this lol and I was trying to joke around using Gorge W Bush jr lol,

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 12:09 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiden (Post 6546334)
How about we just even it out, like make it in a open field (The ships to me seem overkill), or lets just ask Deadliest warrior to make a episode of this lol and I was trying to joke around using Gorge W Bush jr lol,

But I want to create the most realistic scenario, and Gustav II Adolf would never initiate this war.

Deadliest Warrior is an interesting show but I don't always agree with their conclusions. It seems suspicious to me that in most comparisons when they compare 4 weapons, there are 2 victories and 2 defeats for each warrior :ugeek:

Raiden 03-05-2013 12:11 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
I know and me too, I just like the corny reenactments lol

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 12:14 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiden (Post 6546351)
I know and me too, I just like the corny reenactments lol

I usually throw the clips around a little to make custom comparisons; I've actually made a Shaolin Monk vs Ninja video. My conclusion is that the Ninja wins due to superior long-range lethality. And most recently I made William Wallace (aka a Scottish Highlander) vs a Viking.

Please give me more ideas about what warriors to compare `:P

Shisko Shi 03-05-2013 12:52 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Ninja are you talking about when they helped out to fight the Holy Roman Emrpire? Because that it self is a irelevent staement. As they lost there king and they went ape shizz on everyone.

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 01:00 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi (Post 6546446)
Ninja are you talking about when they helped out to fight the Holy Roman Emrpire? Because that it self is a irelevent staement. As they lost there king and they went ape shizz on everyone.

Yes, Gustav II Adolf was too brave for his own good... that's a problem seen with Karl XII as well, and in fact all Swedish kings who are worth remembering fought in the frontline among their soldiers. Unfortunately two of them died this way... but still, the Swedish army at the time was superior to any, and even without Gustav II Adolf's leadership the Holy Roman Empire's forces were no match.

Shisko Shi 03-05-2013 01:20 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Well you are wrong on why the HOly Roman Empire lost. And it is the lower Cathlic part not al. It was not even a religion war.

They were fighting because the emiper wanted to be in control of the empire. The holy roman empirer had no real power just a title.

The reason they won... is not because of them. But The Catholics were fighting the French too and the Ottoman Empire.

Just the side you mentioned and the Empirer and Swiden would have lost with otu a dout. French fought because they did not want someone next to them with that much power. Same with the other princes of the holy roman empire, because then they would be forced to convert to catholicism. And the Church would gain acces to the land and slowly return to the power it had. It was all about power. So the HRE fought alot of people that is why the 30 years wars lasted that long. He ha the power but was aginst to many peopl.e He only had Spain on his said from the enheritince from his grandfather Charels the I sone grandson of Ferdinand.

But anyways this is WAY out of character for The Virgin Qween to even fight out of land. But if so... you stil lhave the many ships. But it is hard to say when it is like this. It is more in character for 'Gustav' to invade. In which case he loses.

Ninja of Cao 03-05-2013 01:26 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi (Post 6546493)
Well you are wrong on why the HOly Roman Empire lost. And it is the lower Cathlic part not al. It was not even a religion war.

They were fighting because the emiper wanted to be in control of the empire. The holy roman empirer had no real power just a title.

The reason they won... is not because of them. But The Catholics were fighting the French too and the Ottoman Empire.

Just the side you mentioned and the Empirer and Swiden would have lost with otu a dout. French fought because they did not want someone next to them with that much power. Same with the other princes of the holy roman empire, because then they would be forced to convert to catholicism. And the Church would gain acces to the land and slowly return to the power it had. It was all about power. So the HRE fought alot of people that is why the 30 years wars lasted that long. He ha the power but was aginst to many peopl.e He only had Spain on his said from the enheritince from his grandfather Charels the I sone grandson of Ferdinand.

But anyways this is WAY out of character for The Virgin Qween to even fight out of land. But if so... you stil lhave the many ships. But it is hard to say when it is like this. It is more in character for 'Gustav' to invade. In which case he loses.

Sweden was the leading contributor to the Catholic defeat in the Thirty Years' War according to all history books I have read. Sweden alone with it's tiny force killed, wounded and captured more than 100,000 Catholic soldiers and it was Gustav II Adolf who was behind the most decisive Protestant victories of the war. France provided a fair amount of support in the west, but they could never push as deep into Germany as the Swedes did. Even after the Saxon betrayal, Gustav II Adolf was confident at the head of his army and decisive in most of his victories until the day he was killed in the battle of Lutzen. Sweden had a military force superior to any other in the world at that time, and modern historical theorists claim that Sweden, without a doubt, would have been able to conquer all of today's Germany if the king had survived.

Also, it is even more out of character for Gustav II Adolf to invade a fellow Protestant nation. If England attacked a Protestant ally of Sweden, however, he would do just like he did with the Holy Roman Empire: a quick attack with superior firepower that annihilates the outdated enemies with ease.

Shisko Shi 03-05-2013 03:16 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
You also realize they they went crazy and half those kills are families and villagers.

Also non of the wars were about religoin so that does not matter. Is everyone new that gustav was a major super power then he would be kied by everyone because they only cared about not wanting to have a strong enemy


Also do nt call it Germany because there was no Germany then

Wooster 03-05-2013 05:51 PM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Blockade and English privateers(really pirates). England never bothers to land in Sweden. Sweden starves. England wins easily.

Besides the fact that history shows England rose to prominence, not Sweden.
Heck the Dutch did much better shortly after( in the historical sense) .

But really England was an upstart during Elizabeth's time, Spain and France had all the power, although Spain was on the decline wedding to mercantilism and it's New World gold. Spain's Armada was really nothing. England's navy and privateers did rise to top notch and they had better artillery--better iron ore in England mad better shot. England never had much of an army at the time as England was ahead of it's time in general freedom of it's people. But this is why England had great privateers. And those privateers let England build a great navy, that prevented anyone from crossing the channel.

If England actually had to fight a land battle they would lose, but Elizabeth would be smart enough as other English Tudors that followed. Sure James fell to William of Orange, but only because the navy sided with the protestant over the catholic. Assuming, this is not a problem. England forms a blockade where it can and has privateers cause havoc elsewhere. Worked on Napoleon involving the entire continent, certainly should work here on a smaller scale.

Ninja of Cao 03-06-2013 07:39 AM

Re: Elizabeth I vs Gustav II Adolf
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi (Post 6546826)
You also realize they they went crazy and half those kills are families and villagers.

Also non of the wars were about religoin so that does not matter. Is everyone new that gustav was a major super power then he would be kied by everyone because they only cared about not wanting to have a strong enemy


Also do nt call it Germany because there was no Germany then

Half of the casualties were civilians? The only major atrocity by the Swedish army during the Thirty Years' War was the sack of Prague, where 219 Bohemian people (including many soldiers) were killed despite peace arrangement. If you want to comment on further civilian casualties caused by the Swedes, I must request that you provide valid sources.

Gustav II Adolf fought for religion in the name of God and his original goal was not to expand Swedish power but rather to protect the new Lutheran faith in Europe.

Indeed, Germany was founded in 1871, but even during that time the people of the Holy Roman Empire's territories were known as Germans. In fact, the Swedish word for the Holy Roman Empire is Tysk-romerska riket (literally "The German-Roman empire").
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster (Post 6547271)
Blockade and English privateers(really pirates). England never bothers to land in Sweden. Sweden starves. England wins easily.

Besides the fact that history shows England rose to prominence, not Sweden.
Heck the Dutch did much better shortly after( in the historical sense) .

But really England was an upstart during Elizabeth's time, Spain and France had all the power, although Spain was on the decline wedding to mercantilism and it's New World gold. Spain's Armada was really nothing. England's navy and privateers did rise to top notch and they had better artillery--better iron ore in England mad better shot. England never had much of an army at the time as England was ahead of it's time in general freedom of it's people. But this is why England had great privateers. And those privateers let England build a great navy, that prevented anyone from crossing the channel.

If England actually had to fight a land battle they would lose, but Elizabeth would be smart enough as other English Tudors that followed. Sure James fell to William of Orange, but only because the navy sided with the protestant over the catholic. Assuming, this is not a problem. England forms a blockade where it can and has privateers cause havoc elsewhere. Worked on Napoleon involving the entire continent, certainly should work here on a smaller scale.

In comparisons between military powers there must be battles and not blockades - the possibility of a blockade could be taken into account, but two important facts remain: First of all, for the comparison to be fair, there must be large-scale land battles with whatever tactics and weapons used by the rulers. Second, Sweden had a very large land border and should not have any problems to import necessary products from the mainland - this was proven when the Danes, Poles, and Germans all tried to blockade Sweden throughout the age of the Swedish Empire (note: all failed to starve out the Swedes).


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.