“Just wonder why Charles XII, not Gustav II Adolf? The latter was way more successful in many fields of kingship.”
- Charles XII was an outstanding commander, but the genius of Gustav II Adolf even rivals that of Nobel.
It ought to be kept in mind that the difference between C XII and G II was that the former was a defender and the latter an invader. Heroic defenders are more likely to become legendary national icons than successful conquerors.
Anyhow, we DO celebrate Gustav Adolf:
http://www.thelocal.se/5402/20061103/
In some parts of Germany (mostly Protestant regions), he is still is celebrated even by today. In certain other parts of that country, Swedes like him are not welcome back. War is not a funny thing, not even in the 17th century it was.
Today, most Swedes view Charles XII as a symbol of Swedish resistence against forein evil forces (yes, we Swedes view the all of the world outside Sweden as dark and evil, probably because it’s not Swedish enough). Among right wing groups and also among a lot of ordinary Conservatives, Charles XII and his fate is viewed as a reminder of the simple truth that hell always awaits round the corner, so to say.
Personal safety is a basic human need, but constantly feeling safe equals stupidity.
Do any Swedes regard the lost territories as Swedish territory?
As for Gustav II, he was not only a competent general, but also a visionary ruler. He made many useful reforms in Swedish military, he patronised commerce, especially the mining branch, fathered Swedish secondary school system, reformed local governing, church and so on - I think his historical role can be compared to the Elizabeth I's in the UK.
On the contrary, the results of the Charles XII's reign were all negative to Sweden -only losses of overseas provinces.