Could Sweden win Northern Wars?
- Thread starter Stonewall
- Start date
A lot. And the implausibility is because the resource imbalance is so wildly against Sweden.
So long as Peter keeps fighting, Sweden is going to be increasingly overextended logistically.
Maybe if Sweden were just taking on Russia. As much as I'd like to say that Charles XII would seize the Russian throne, the Swedes would probably just end up keeping the Russians at bay for another generation or two. If there is one thing Russia is good at, it's nickeling-and-diming its neighbors to death. For those who are not familiar with the phrase, it basically means chipping away at something one piece at a time.
Charles' decision to invade Russia, and marching at Moscow as opposed to St. Petersburg may have affected the outcome of the war. Peter would defend St. Petersburg to the death, and Charles could have forced a battle for it on his terms and destroy the Tsar's army, as opposed to giving peter space to manuver, which he did up to the Poltlava campaign by invadin ghte Ukraine. Campagining near the baltic provinces would also give him the advantage of maintaining his lines of supply with his navy.
If the swedes takes St. Petersburg, he instantly stops the naval raids to his supply lines and potentially even turn the finland campaign around. Russia would not have the resources to retake St. Petersburg, not with an resurgent Swedish force there (the army that Charles left Poland with was considered his best one since narva) All charles would have to do is let Peter bleed his army dry against the Baltic
By 'defeat', i'm definining it as stopping Russia and establishing pre-war borders, there was no way Charles would destroy Russia.
If the swedes takes St. Petersburg, he instantly stops the naval raids to his supply lines and potentially even turn the finland campaign around. Russia would not have the resources to retake St. Petersburg, not with an resurgent Swedish force there (the army that Charles left Poland with was considered his best one since narva) All charles would have to do is let Peter bleed his army dry against the Baltic
By 'defeat', i'm definining it as stopping Russia and establishing pre-war borders, there was no way Charles would destroy Russia.
Denying Russia access to the Baltic surely weakens her massively relative to OTL. Of course, the balance still favors Russia in the long haul; in subsequent conflict, which is bloody likely, Russia only needs to win once, Sweden has to win every time to keep an advantageous position which traslates into a permanent stretch.
What I meant was, leaving Russia weaker than it was before the war. Weaker than OTL? Maybe. That's about it.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Arguably no, Sweden picked a fight with too many enemies at one time and was content to go after a great many of its other enemies at the same time. The problem Sweden had is that like Germany generations later it picked a war with as many strong enemies, such as Poland and Prussia, as it was in it to do, so it was to overextend its forces in the process. Charles XII is not the type of person to exactly show military restraint in terms of picking and choosing his enemies, too.
Actually Sweden had been attacked at the beginning of the war, though Charles' personality and ambition turned the conflict into a war of expansion very soon.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Because Sweden like Germany was never interested in just fighting Russia and wanted a much vaster group of enemies against it? We, after all, are describing a war where Prussia, Hanover, Denmark, and Poland were all allies of Russia (!) so it's fairly obvious that Charles XII was seeking after far more than a defeat of Russia here, and likewise if he averts that broader situation Russia will not go to war with Sweden alone. Charles XII, again, was attacked by three enemies jointly, for him to be attacked by one alone would be a very different war.
Rubicon
Banned
I suggest you first read the wiki articles of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden
they're of decent quality.
However the articles do not expand upon the motivations of Charles XII, he was quite a complex character. But to narrow it down, he had been raised to never start an unjust war, but when forced to (as in attacked) always prosecute one to the utmost of his abilities. Charles XII considered the attack by Denmark-Norway, Saxony and Russia to be unjust.
He never sought additional conquests to Sweden, and when offered the city of Bremen (Sweden controlled the bishopric of Bremen since the 30-year war) by the Holy Roman Emperor during Charles occupation of Saxony in 1707-08, Charles simply replied: 'I have enough land'.
No what Charles wanted was not conquests, but guaranteed continued Swedish domination of the Baltic ocean. To do that he figured he had to remove those that desired to destroy the Swedish empire. He was successful in removing the one he considered the most dangerous one, August II.
they're of decent quality.
However the articles do not expand upon the motivations of Charles XII, he was quite a complex character. But to narrow it down, he had been raised to never start an unjust war, but when forced to (as in attacked) always prosecute one to the utmost of his abilities. Charles XII considered the attack by Denmark-Norway, Saxony and Russia to be unjust.
He never sought additional conquests to Sweden, and when offered the city of Bremen (Sweden controlled the bishopric of Bremen since the 30-year war) by the Holy Roman Emperor during Charles occupation of Saxony in 1707-08, Charles simply replied: 'I have enough land'.
No what Charles wanted was not conquests, but guaranteed continued Swedish domination of the Baltic ocean. To do that he figured he had to remove those that desired to destroy the Swedish empire. He was successful in removing the one he considered the most dangerous one, August II.
In the first years of the war, Charles actually perceived Poland-Saxony as his priority enemy. Fighting Russia was priority two before 1706, which gave Russia the room to recover after Narva.
Charles delusionally believed that if he managed to smash Denmark (which he did) Saxony (which he did too, but was harder) and Poland (which he sort of managed to for a while) Russia would have given up after some defeats. However, his own feats against the Danes, the Saxons and the Poles were so impressive that he thought he could actually sort of conquer Russia too or, more exactly, force the whole Eastern Europe to become an economical appendage of Sweden, in the mercantilist sense of having to commerce with the rest of the world through Sweden. His projects before Poltava were on the lines of making Sweden the great connecting hub betewwen East and West (I think his alliance with the Ottomans can be seen in this perspective too).
Of course it was delusional and overambitious. He wasted resources that were already thinly stretched in order to force Poland into sumbmission insted of getting a peace deal.
Of course, enmity with Poland (and Denmark to a lesser extent) was deeply ingrained in Swedish strategical thinking of the time. Charles had won big in Poland, to be fair, but his position there was never secure enough to give the Russians a decisive blow too.
Had Charles accepted a more moderate settlement with Augustus, he could have attacked the Russians in the Baltics with full force and maybe defeat them. Probably the result would be little more than some gained cold posts and forts in Karelia, nothing major or balance-shifting.
With the Wettins, however, he might get Royal Courland and Royal Livonia, and make Ducal Courland a vassal.
I am not sure what peace demands were made to the Danes, but I suppose they would not resume the war in such scenario.
In at least one of his treaties with Leszczinski, he added Courland and Livonia to Sweden. However, you are correct. His motivations were not essentially about territorial aggrandizement in itself. He wasn't a fully committed Imperialist, not at the beginning at least. What he was forcing upon the Poles was more on the lines of economical domination.
He was ambitious, and stretched his country's resources beyond their limits, and did not fully grasp how strong Russia was. He was also a very competent general. He was no fool.
To my mind, deposing Augustus was his most important single error, but then, I can say that with benefit of hindsight. That move made sense at the time, acting on the assumption that Poland was dangerous, especially if tied to Saxony (that on paper was his real enemy after all).
To be fair, Sweden only smashed one enemy during the war, Poland, and the impact of the nordic war together was the start of the road that led to the partitioning of the country.
Denmark was never smashed. Charles landed with a force near Copenhagen with brittish help while Denmarks army was in Holstein. They sued for peace and didnt act again until after news of Poltava came
Sweden after the war was in better shape than Poland IMHO.
Denmark was never smashed. Charles landed with a force near Copenhagen with brittish help while Denmarks army was in Holstein. They sued for peace and didnt act again until after news of Poltava came
Sweden after the war was in better shape than Poland IMHO.
Danes felt smashed enough to sue for peace and stay out of the mess for quite a while though, and Saxony got her fair share of ass-kicking too.
Narva was a heavy blow for Russia too.
You are right, Poland got the brunt of the war overall. However, in the maps of the Wikipedia article I see that a lot of Swedish towns were pillaged and burnt in the final stages of the war.
I'd say that the path that led Poland to the Partitions traces as far back as the Deluge.
Have Peter stay with the army at Narva a few days longer and get captured or killed with the rest. There, you are done. This Russia isnt the rus of 150 years later. They do not have a huge population to draw on and they are a poor shithole. They have space making them hard to conquer and they have Peter which is a giant trying to pull an entire country up the hill of modernization. Remove him and they are done for a generation or more.
Fun fact everyone seems to forget all the damn time. The commonwealth has as big a population as Russia at the time and is a hell of a lot richer...probably of a factor of 2 to 3 and yet noone seems to bother with them being any sort of threat at all.
Fun fact everyone seems to forget all the damn time. The commonwealth has as big a population as Russia at the time and is a hell of a lot richer...probably of a factor of 2 to 3 and yet noone seems to bother with them being any sort of threat at all.
Have Peter stay with the army at Narva a few days longer and get captured or killed with the rest. There, you are done. This Russia isnt the rus of 150 years later. They do not have a huge population to draw on and they are a poor shithole. They have space making them hard to conquer and they have Peter which is a giant trying to pull an entire country up the hill of modernization. Remove him and they are done for a generation or more.
Fun fact everyone seems to forget all the damn time. The commonwealth has as big a population as Russia at the time and is a hell of a lot richer...probably of a factor of 2 to 3 and yet noone seems to bother with them being any sort of threat at all.
You mean the Polish Commonwealth? Charles XII did.
However, Russia had already more potential for growth at the time (I think also, was already more populated, though I'd like to see better data).