A Brief History
On November 17, 1810, Sweden declared war on its ally the United Kingdom to begin the Anglo-Swedish War, although no fighting ever took place and there were no casualties!
Digging Deeper
Prior to 1810, Britain and Sweden were allies against Napoleonic France. In 1810, however, the situation changed. France and Sweden concluded The Treaty of Paris on January 6, 1810, forcing Sweden to join the Continental System, a trade embargo against Great Britain. Next, after The Swedish Crown Prince Charles August died on May 28, 1810, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, a Marshal of France and husband of Napoleon’s former fiance (herself the sister of Napoleon’s eldest brother’s wife), was elected crown prince of Sweden on August 21, 1810. Under these circumstances, on November 13, 1810, Napoleon sent an ultimatum to Sweden’s government demanding that Sweden declare war against Great Britain within five days. This war began on November 17, 1810.
Unfortunately for Napoleon, Britain and Sweden never actually fought against each other during the two years of conflict. Indeed, the only thing that could possibly count as bloodshed brought about by the Anglo-Swedish War of 1810-12 occurred amongst Swedes. As a precautionary measure in case if Britain attempted an invasion of Sweden, the Swedish government conscripted farmers into military service. When on June 15, 1811, a group of farmers objecting to conscription rioted, as a result, Major-General Hampus Mörner with 140 men killed 30 farmers in an effort to disperse them.
As it came to pass, when Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, a time when it would have really helped to have had as many allies as possible, his relationship with Sweden’s government had deteriorated to such an extent that Sweden signed a peace treaty with Britain on the same day that Russia did the same (July 18, 1812).
A year later, Napoleon’s former marshal and future king of Sweden fought with Russia against Napoleon in the massive battle of Leipzig. In this decisive defeat for Napoleon, the French emperor’s army suffered some 60,000 casualties, nearly half that number dead and wounded, an astonishing number for a single battle when one considers that in over 8 years of fighting in Iraq (2003-2011), the United States of America lost 4,487 killed. Question for students (and subscribers): Imagine what it would be like to suffer 60,000 casualties in just one of many battles of a long war! Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
The following are among the best recent books published on this time period (we recommend reading them in the order listed below):
Conner, Susan P. The Age of Napoleon (Greenwood Guides to Historic Events 1500-1900). Greenwood, 2004.
Markham, J. David. Napoleon For Dummies. For Dummies, 2005.
Zarzeczny, Matthew D. Meteors That Enlighten the Earth: Napoleon and the Cult of Great Men. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013.
The featured image in this article, a photograph by Joshua06 of a memorial plate to the Treaty of Örebro, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You can also watch a video version of this article on YouTube.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="695 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=695">99 Comments
Of the two articles I found this one to be more interesting. I found it interesting that you can call something a war even though no fighting ever happened and nobody died from the war.
I agree with Tyler that this article seems to be more interesting due to the thoughts on war. If no fighting or no deaths is still a war, then I feel like there have been a lot more wars than thought. Interesting thought.
I think this article is more interesting than the Haitian Independence article. -Tricia D
I find this article more interesting than the Haitian Independence because there was never actually any fighting in this “war.” So in sense this would just be more of a argument. -Kia T
I like this article more interesting than the Haitin one. Both of them are interesting but I simply like Sweden and its mythology better.
I always find conflicts between nations that have little to no casualties very interesting. For example, the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. went on for 45 years or so and saw only about 50 U.S. wounded and casualties, if I’m not mistaken.
It is interesting that Napoleon never forced Sweden into any armed conflicts.
It seems like Sweden never actually intended to fight England. It is just interesting that they never ended the war after two years of “fighting.” Napoleon probably had a lot of say over the matter, but I think the Swedes were less than thrilled by the demands of the French Emperor.
I remember seeing a movie and see the fear in Napoleon’s eyes as Russia along with all other allies fought against him. I can only imagine how fearful he must have been. Napoleon was a great leader that did all he could to protect his people. The intense battle of Leipzig resulted in 60,000 French casualties and all those deaths must have taken a toll on Napoleon.
Its very interesting to see how many casualties these armies suffered. The numbers are astounding because the number of deaths are over 300K.
Napoleon really could have used that battle. I never would have thought GB and Sweden would fight a war. I didn’t know Sweden was that interesting.
It’s hard to even comprehend 60000 casualties.
Invading Russia turned out to be a big mistake but I didn’t realize the Sweden-Britain battle could have helped.
60,000 casualties is a huge number especially when comparing it to the 4,500 US troops lost in Iraq. I could not imagine losing 60,000 troops.
Trying to wrap your head around losing 60,000 soldiers is near impossible. I tried to think what would happen if the US was to lose that many people, just in one war. Losing that many troops must have really messed with Napoleon’s head.
It is hard to imagine that many casualties in a war, let alone one battle!
I wonder if Napoleon ever felt intense guilt for the massive loss of his soldiers. Surely, he had to have felt embarrassment at such a loss? Must have been extremely scary to have Britain, Sweden, and Russia all against you. :O
I thought Napoleon was supposed to be the smartest tactic general in his time but he failed royally when invading Russia
Wonder how he felt after it all losing 60,000 people..
goes to show that you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink
WOW… 60,000 casualties in a single battle! It is hard to fathom! — DAVID WARDLE
60,000 people dead in just one battle is crazy!! i feel like this could have been resolved a different way thats for sure.
Wow! 60,000 people in one battle! That is hard to even imagine the devastation.
That’s a lot of bodies under Napoleons command. Wonder if he had any guilt for killing so many people
I think this article is a lot more interesting than the Haitian one!
60,000 people is hard to imagine.
It’s mind boggling to consider the amount of casualties during Napoleon’s campaigns
60,000 people is almost too much to grasp. Where do all the bodies go?
60,000 people in one battle is an insane amount of casualties.
It is incredible to think how many people died. I always wonder if those at the top like Napolean ever great certain battles or wars
“French emperor’s army suffered some 60,000 casualties, nearly half that number dead and wounded, an astonishing number for a single battle when one considers that in over 8 years of fighting in Iraq (2003-2011), the United States of America lost 4,487 killed.”
Accounts differ, but the Iraqis have lost, according to the (arguably biased) Iraqi Body Count Project, some 174,000. Given the time and place, and that the fight was not asymmetrical as was the case in Iraq, 60,000 dead in a continental fight during the age of muskets doesn’t seem to buck the book.
How ironic that Napoleon’s former Marshal fought against him, with Russia no less. This definitely shows how arrogance can lead to a man’s demise.
I agree, if Napoleon was not as arrogant as he was his empire may have lasted longer then it did. Due to his greed and ego he was not able to realize that the odds were not in his favor when he invaded Russia, especially when Sweden was alongside Russia.
The reason why there were no casualties between Sweden and Great Britain was because they were forced to go to war with them by France. It sounds like Sweden didn’t have a choice after concluding with The Treaty of Paris with France. It was only a matter of time before Sweden and Great Britain would sign a peace treaty.
I find it hard to believe that Sweden has ever been involved in any wars whatsoever. I am also shocked that the American casualties from the Iraq War are not nearly as close to those lost at the Battle of Leipzig.
it is crazy to think about all of the deaths that have happened from war and this one particularly. Megan brings up a good point that it is interesting that this number is still higher then deaths from the Iraq war. I think part of that could be in the 1800’s their system to track and keep count of everybody probably isn’t as good as it is now, so maybe some deaths could have been counted twice or lost track of!
I find it very intriguing how Napoleon’s thirst for power and expansion originally helped him strengthen his empire, but after so much success in conquering, his ego got the better of him. He was foolish enough to attempt to invade Russia. Since he was so unprepared for the climate of Russia, his army suffered a massive loss in one individual battle, which devastated the French.
Since Sweden and Britain were allies, rather than Sweden declaring war, as they were forced to by France, Sweden should have instead allied against Britain against France. Allies need to stick together. It is a good thing that there were no casualties in this “war” though.
N.W.
I find it somewhat interesting how Napoleon wanted so much power and his army lost a lot. I never learned much about this in school so reading this was very cool.
AM
Napoleon’s power-hungry ego helped him become successful, but also aided in his demise. I cannot imagine what he felt after losing so many soldiers.
A two year “war”, with only 30 casualties. And of those 30, each one of them were Swedish farmers killed in a riot.. Wow. GW
I find it really interesting that the Anglo-Swedish war was considered a war since there was no fighting and not casualties. It’s pretty strange sounding.
I find it interesting that there was no casualties and no fighting and it is still classified as a war. Wars are usually something associated with casualties and battles, not lack of them
It is interesting that there was no fighting for such a long time during this war. It seems as if all the tension seemed to build up, though, considering during the one battle that did take place 60,000 soldiers were injured/killed..
60,000 casualties is hard to imagine and that was just one of the many battles!
The fact you can call this a war with so little causalities and lack of fighting is pretty interesting.
The fact that you can have a war without any casulities or fightiong is astonishing. However in some cases theses are the best tipes of war.
I agree with others that it is odd for this to be called a war with such little fighting and few casualties. I can’t imagine how the French must have felt losing 60,000 people in one battle.
It goes to show you that your approach in diplomacy when associating with other nations is important. Sweden clearly did not like being told what to do and that hindered the alliance Napeolen needed.
i think its interesting that you can have a war with barely anyone dying
It makes sense that the only reason Sweden joined France in
their war against Great Britain was because a Frenchmen took over the Swedish
crown.
Is it really a battle or war if no blood is shed? I feel that is a requirement haha.
It shouldn’t be called a war if there was little or no fighting involved. Maybe call it a complication or something better than the word war.
You could wonder whether a few decisions made really could change history
It’s horrible that so many casualties were caused because of one man it seems like hardy anyone made it out alive.
Well they call it a war but no one even died. I do not know if I actually would call that a war. I would say they had a little talk but defiantly not a war.
This makes discussing war a little easier since it isn’t brutal.
Ah Sweden you are force into a war you didn’t want to fight and somehow did absolutely for two whole years but prepare.
Interesting how a war that had no casualties could lead to a battle with so many casualties.
It’s crazy to think that so many lives were lost in a single battle like that when the war had none.
It doesn’t seem surprising that Sweden and Britain never actually went to battle. It is hard to imagine 60,000 casualties in one battle.
It seems odd to force a country into war yet demand no actual conflict with it.
Thank God our country hasn’t forced us into a war where we suffer anywhere near that many casualties in just one battle. Vietnam was about as horrible overall, but at least it wasn’t a precursor to something far more deadly in the near future.
60,000 people in one battle? Shows you how bloody a war with/against Napoleon can get.
not exactly a war. but this is a crazy part that expresses 60,000 lost without this being a “war”.
Alot being lost without being brutal
60,000 people in just one battle is ridiculous.
That many casualties, yet not a war. Doesn’t make sense.
60,000 deaths during one battle is insane to comprehend, especially compared to the numbers from Iraq! It is even harder to comprehend the fact that this was caused from a war with no casualties.
I find it strange and confusing when two previous allies end up fighting. 60,000 casualties is a number so hard to comprehend. Over 8 years the USA had 4,487 soldiers killed, but there were 60,000 casualties in only one battle? That is insane!
If all wars were as simple as the one between the British and the Swedes during that period, I think that things would be a lot simpler. Compared to the single battle between France and Russia and the loss of 60,000 men, it makes me wish all wars were without casualties.
I thought I read 60,000 wrong the first time through the article then I saw everyone commenting on this number and it is truly mind blowing that any nation or country could lose that many people in one fight. It is almost like the French went in blind folded and sacrificed themselves. That is absurd and crazy to think about. That is more deaths than the city of mentor has people. Mentor has roughly 45,000 people…
60,000 is an outrageous number of casualties from one fight. It is crazy to think that a bloodless war led to such a gruesome battle involving so many casualties. Invading Russia was a bold move by Napoleon that cost his army many lives.
It sounds like the rulers of Sweden were just trying to appease Napoleon by going to war with the British. It doesn’t seem as if they ever had any intention of actually attacking or fighting with the British. I can’t imagine losing 60,000 soldiers in one battle. Those kinds of casualties would be so devastating for a country.
This really does demonstrate how ridiculous politics can be. A war between two allies which resulted in no battles and the only conflict being on the home front. Not surprisingly war did ensue later on where France endured massive casualties. That is what happens when you attempt to pit two friends against each other.
I wonder if our world will ever get to a point where they are sick of the people in their country dying due to war. 60,000 casualties is far too many, especially against allies.
The fact that no casualties occurred between Britain and Sweden for two years is remarkable. It seems Sweden only declared war on Britain in order to keep the peace with France. Sweden was not concerned with fighting the British.
Napoleon did himself a dis-service by creating enemies at a time of need (right before a war). Either he did not have a strategy, or his strategy was not well thought out. Instead there were 60,000 casualties.
The fact at the end about the Iraq war brought it into perspective. It’s interesting to see the difference between wars now and previously in history. Wars now seem to be more tame then in previous years. This piece of history shows that some political decisions are just “figureheads,” they don’t mean much in reality.
Napoleon forced Sweden to declare war against Great Britain. Britain and Sweden never fought one another. They never went to battle as Napoleon had hoped they would. Ironically, when Napoleon ended up going to battle against Russia, Sweden had made a peace treaty with Russia and Napoleon lost 60,000 people in one battle.
Napoleon ruined a lot of his relationships. Forcing Sweden to join the Continental system, and eventually, forcing them to declare war on Great Britain only made the situation worse for himself. When he went to invade Russia, he would now have no allies that he found himself needing. Relationships really do matter.
Napoleon was not a very popular man throughout history. Why he would burn so many bridges is beyond me. Just 30 farmers killed in a riot sounds like a lot, so to lose 60,000 men in one battle would be unthinkable.
The stat of losing 60,000 men compared to losing 4,487 men in an 8 year span is unreal to me.
Losing 60,000 men in a single battle compared to the 4,487 lost in Iraq over eight years is unbelievable. I bet they never expected such a huge loss and that had to have affected their army in a major way.
For two years there was a serious conflict with no bloodshed between Britain and Sweden. Then, they sign a peace treaty and gang up on Napoleon France causing one of the bloodiest battles. It is astounding that these two countries were able to go from no violence to mass violence.
The amount of deaths were just mind boggling at this time during battle we think were losing a lot of men can you imagine not bringing 60,000 troops home that’s a hard pill to swallow.
To tell you the truth it sort of reminds me of the cold war. While yes the circumstances were different The U.S. and Russia were definitely at each others necks. Just like Sweden and the UK.
I cant possibly think of that many deaths or casualties that’s a crazy # of people wounded, or dead ,but 60,000 compared to 4,000 is a huge difference thank god it was not more.
Kinda funny how Napoleon wanted Sweden to fight the United Kingdom, and how the two countries never had any bloodshed against one another.
60,000 deaths is entirely too many. So unfortunate for the many families and friends that lost their loved ones.
Its sad to think that over 8 years America lost almost 4.500 people but its heart breaking to think that in one battle over 60,000 people lost their lives. I cant even imagine!
It’s terrible to think of all those lives lost. Thankfully the world isn’t in a constant state of war where there are so many causalities.
Thinking about 60,000 people dying in one battle is crazy, that is about the amount of students who attend The Ohio State University in Columbus.
60,000 is way to many people that lost their lives, I can’t believe that many people suffered.
60,000 is way too many casualties. It was a pyrrhic victory/defeat for both sides.
I think it would have been less dramatic (but still terrible) if the 60,000 casualties had been spread over many years but for it all to be in one battle is horrible to think about.
I can’t believe Napoleon told Sweden to declare war on Britain when they were allies.
60,000 people! I couldn’t even begin to imagine that many casualities!
I can’t begin to think about what 60,000 casualties would even look like from. That is so many people!