I want Charles in charge of me

[The Professor]

You wrote "That explains a few things". Which "things" are you talking about?

Oh. It explains why I remembered Prince of Novgorod as a tsarly title yet you remembered it not as one.

 

[alexmilman]

Oh. It explains why I remembered Prince of Novgorod as a tsarly title yet you remembered it not as one.

I see. Glad to be of service.

The whole thing is rather intriguing and, to add to this confusion, title of Ivan III has "and" on the list: "... sovereign of All Russia and Great Prince of Vladimir and Moscow and Novgorod and Pskov and Twer ..." while in the tittle of his successor the "and's" are gone and the "Great Prince" is mentioned twice: 1st in the initial part of a title and then in a 2nd part added to the tile of his predecessor: "... Sovereign of Great Prince of Nizny Novgorod and Chernigov and Ryazan, ..." <etc.>.

Ivan IV added in the middle "Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan" (clearly separate entities, each with its own title) and to the 2nd list "ruler of the whole Suberian land...."

Tsar Alexey has "Tsar of Siberia" added to "Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan".

Can't tell exact meaning of these changes but strongly suspect that the nuances are mostly lost in translation due to the grammatical differences. Anyway, as I said, it is possible to assume that "Great Prince" (or whatever) is used for the "entities" (which could a a list of names).

 

[Bytor]

Elementary knowledge of the Russian history would tell you that they did not have "fiefs powers" at least since the time of Ivan the Terrible.

Which all goes out the window once the Tsar is dead and the heir disappears. I know they didn't have strict fiefs as we think of them in Western Europe, but they were still appointed governors and so forth of regions and districts and had local command. Like it or not, with the Tsar gone it would be a bucket of crabs all scrambling to convert those governorates and county administrations into effective principalities, into actual fiefs.

Typical "decision" of all problems: did that cannon fell on his head or perhaps he did not recognize one end of a cannon from another?

Canon explode, orientations are muffed. This isn't the era of laser-guided munitions. Or, you know, that Swedish tendency to split and attack form both flanks.

Sounds as a complete nonsense taking into an account that Novgorod was a fortified place and that there were more than 20,000 Russian troops there.

The Great Northern War, up until the battle of Poltava, is replete with stories of Swedish forces out numbered more than 2:1 in similar situations and they came out victorious. Narva was one such instance where, IIRC, it was almost 4:1 against the Swedes.

 

[Bytor]

Which "Novgorodians"? Novgorod ceased to exist as an independent entity during the reign of Ivan III and as a semi-independent entity during the reign of Ivan IV.

The city of Kitchener, where I was born and live, isn't sovereign either, but it's inhabitants still have a demonym. I think you might benefit from learning to not read into another words your own assumptions, yes?

Nothing personal but Siberia does not start immediately to the East of Moscow's walls and there wan would be plenty of more comfortable and meaningful places in between to run to.

That's kind of the point. This was a 10 year old boy already known to have an antipathy for his father, raised under the tutelage of a regency council of the Boyar Duma who hated his father's reforms and tried to resist them while Tsar Peter was still alive and want a pliant puppet, not a knowledgeable, competent tsar. Do you really think he'll be well informed on the Russian relams, that they more
than "quelques arpents de neige"?

You may get some idea by reading something about the Time of Trouble or just by looking at the map.

Or, you know, maybe just tone down the arrogance when you clearly don't realise what the other person is talking about, hmm?

I can bet that he did not by a very simple reason: there was no sewage system in Moscow of the early XVIII.

Not surprised, but irrelevant. It could have been some adoring staff with him since childhood who smudged his face and snuck him out as a servant.

 

[alexmilman]

The city of Kitchener, where I was born and live, isn't sovereign either, but it's inhabitants still have a demonym. I think you might benefit from learning to not read into another words your own assumptions, yes?

And I think that you may benefit from learning the basics of a subject you are writing about. Did your city of Kitchener had "Kitchener's army" and "Kitchener's boyars"? Had it been a capital of the independent state? Somehow I don't think so, which mean that your analogy is completely irrelevant. There were no "Novgorodian army" and "Novgorodian boyars" in 1700. Simply would not make any sense historically because both terms have quite certain meaning which ceased to exist couple centuries prior to the events of 1700.

That's kind of the point. This was a 10 year old boy already known to have an antipathy for his father,

There is no indication that he did any antipathy when he was 10 years old.

raised under the tutelage of a regency council of the Boyar Duma who hated his father's reforms

As I already said, you don't know the subject. Sheremetev, Romodanovsky, Repnin, Boris Golitsin, Vasily Dolgorukov, Fyodor Golovin, Gagarin and quite a few others had been members of the top Russian aristocracy and Peter's closest associates. Where did you get an idea that they hated Peter's reforms? An idea of a "reactionary Boyar Duma" existed mostly in the minds of Stalinist historians.

Or, you know, maybe just tone down the arrogance when you clearly don't realise what the other person is talking about, hmm?

Well, I realized that you don't know the subject you are trying to write about and got annoyed when pointed to the obvious lapses in your story. How about a little bit of objectivity?

 

[alexmilman]

Which all goes out the window once the Tsar is dead and the heir disappears.

It did not in OTL at the times of the previous and future dynastic crisises and it would not and there would be no "fiefs" and no return to the system which did not exist since the time of Ivan IV. Disappearance of the male heir would not mean disappearance of all heirs and there were 3 daughters of Ivan V one of which ended up as Empress of Russia.

I know they didn't have strict fiefs as we think of them in Western Europe, but they were still appointed governors and so forth of regions and districts and had local command. Like it or not, with the Tsar gone it would be a bucket of crabs all scrambling to convert those governorates and county administrations into effective principalities, into actual fiefs.

Fantasy unrelated to the Russian realities of even the previous reigns. BTW, there were no governors in 1700.

Canon explode, orientations are muffed. This isn't the era of laser-guided munitions. Or, you know, that Swedish tendency to split and attack form both flanks.

Which "flanks"? An idea that after defeat at Narva Peter was going to give a field battle at Novgorod is absurd. City population was mobilized (in OTL) to build the earthworks around the existing old stone fortifications in the case of Charles' advance. Peter would leave defense of the city to Repnin with part of his force. Taking into an account that Charles did not have a heavy artillery, and that he did not have enough troops for a complete blockade of the city or supplies allowing to keep blockade for a long time, the worst case scenario for the Russians would be an improved version of Grodno (unlike Grodno, they'd have ability to supply the city): eventually they'd be forced to abandon the city.

In a meantime Peter would continue raising the new troops, as did happen in OTL during the winter of 1700/01. Probably even Sheremetev's cavalry would not be redeployed: it was sent to the Baltic provinces before Charles' plans became known and Repnin had something like 10,000 Cossacks in Novgorod (besides the regular troops). Enough to create a lot of logistical problems for Charles if he stays near Novgorod.

The Great Northern War, up until the battle of Poltava, is replete with stories of Swedish forces out numbered more than 2:1 in similar situations and they came out victorious. Narva was one such instance where, IIRC, it was almost 4:1 against the Swedes.

Which "situations"? We are talking about the siege, not a field battle: Novgorod was a fortified city and there would be no reason for the Russians to go outside its defenses.

And Charles' ability to take even a quite modest fortress if it was stubbornly defended is quite questionable. Defenses of Poltava consisted of a rampart with a moat in front of it and a wooden stockade at the top of it. Garrison consisted of 4,182 soldiers and had 5 24 pounders, 4 18 pounders, 16 light guns of 1 - 3 pounds and 1 32 pounds mortair and was very short on gunpowder and cannonballs. Size of the besieging Swedish army was over 24,300 (this is a number for the late June, almost 2 months after siege started). Attempt to take fortress by a direct attack (April 29 and 30) failed. The following regular (Vauban-style) siege was still going on in the late June when Peter finally concentrated a big force in the area. So what would be the chances against a much bigger, better fortified, garrisoned and supplied fortress like Novgorod?

 

[Bytor]

And I think that you may benefit from learning the basics of a subject you are writing about. Did your city of Kitchener had "Kitchener's army" and "Kitchener's boyars"? Had it been a capital of the independent state?

Except I never said that Novogorod here was an independent state. Again, I point to you reading in things not actually there and then responding to what is in your head. What I wrote was "Russian Boyars from Veliky Novgorod"

Somehow I don't think so, which mean that your analogy is completely irrelevant. There were no "Novgorodian army" and "Novgorodian boyars" in 1700. Simply would not make any sense historically because both terms have quite certain meaning which ceased to exist couple centuries prior to the events of 1700.

"Centuries"? What about the Boyar Duma which decided that Peter would be the next Tsar when he was ten years old with his mom as regent? Or was Peter some vampire who was centuries old in 1700 instead of having been born in 1672?

And were there no nobles who lived in Novgorod? No troop regiments stationed there or anything like that, hmm? As you say, there was no independent Novgorodian state as this time, but there were elements of the regime there, effectors of the Tsardom's governance structure like tax collectors, military commander, those in charge of drafting troops from the peasantry, judges for trials, and so on.

So before you go on again arguing about this independent Novgorod which only exists in your head and not in anything that I wrote, I'm going to request that you don't bother posting here again unless you can please make a commitment to be civil instead of being an asshole, OK?

 

[alexmilman]

Except I never said that Novogorod here was an independent state. Again, I point to you reading in things not actually there and then responding to what is in your head. What I wrote was "Russian Boyars from Veliky Novgorod"

Which does not make any sense either because Novgorod was not the place where Duma was sitting.

"Centuries"? What about the Boyar Duma which decided that Peter would be the next Tsar when he was ten years old with his mom as regent? Or was Peter some vampire who was centuries old in 1700 instead of having been born in 1672?

Do you have reading problems? I was talking about Novgorodian boyars.

And were there no nobles who lived in Novgorod? No troop regiments stationed there or anything like that, hmm?

This is beyond being pathetic. The troops located in Kitchener (if there are any) are not "Kitchenearean army". I wrote at least twice that there was Repnin's corps positioned in Novgorod at the time of Narva but you are the 1st person who ever called it Novgorodian army. So congratulation on the important discovery in the Russian history.

As you say, there was no independent Novgorodian state as this time, but there were elements of the regime there, effectors of the Tsardom's governance structure like tax collectors, military commander, those in charge of drafting troops from the peasantry, judges for trials, and so on.

"Elements of the regime" were in each and every Russian town and your "argument" does not make any sense because they did not represent any independent entity. Neither were they "boyars". Repnin's corps was not permanently placed there and the city officials were not conducting any independent policy. Well, not that this was the biggest historic lapse of yours.

So before you go on again arguing about this independent Novgorod which only exists in your head and not in anything that I wrote, I'm going to request that you don't bother posting here again unless you can please make a commitment to be civil instead of being an asshole, OK?

I don't care about your requests and if you call me an asshole or something of the kind once more, I'll ask mediator to take care of your language.

 

[Arcavia]

I'm thinking I might retcon the Danish conquest into just a defeat because the Maritime Powers are a bit wary of the Baltic turning into a Swedish lake and forbidding Charles XII from crowning himself king of Denmark. Danish conquest isn't essential to the future of the ATL, but it does make some things easier if the Swedes are getting a decent amount of money from the Sound Tolls.

Any thoughts on a balance between the Danes and the Swedes that gets the Swedes out from under the Sound Tolls but in away that reduces any unease the Maritime Powers may have?

Earlier Kiel Canal with an independent pro Swedish S-H?

 

[HammerofWar]

So it's not 100% realistic. Still sounds pretty badass as a timeline.

Subscribed

 

[Admiral Fisker]

OK, so skipping the details about the Spanish War of Succession with Swedish and Polish input for now, let's just say the following happens:

During the War of Spanish Succession, Charles XII begins to hear hear stories filtered through his generals of the British and Dutch ship captains' trade with the New World and the East Indies and he becomes convinced that Sweden needed to expand its navy beyond the Baltic Sea.

To this end, he marries princess Sophia Hedwig of Denmark in the hopes of reducing or nullifying the Sound Toll for Swedish product going through the Øresund on non-Swedish ships but the Danes are intractable. Thus Gothenburg, started by Gustavus Adlophus a hundred years before, becomes his goal. Nominally Swedish ships built in Gothenburg from local timber but paid for and by crewed by Dutch and Scottish companies start exporting products from Livonia, Ingria, Pskov, Finland and Novgorod, plus importing in the reverse direction. Being nominally Swedish they use Sweden's exemption from the Danish Sound Tax under the Copenhagen Treaty of 1660 whenever they cannot stay close to the Swedish Coast and away from the Danish fort of Helsingør and its guns. Even though Sweden collects their own tolls, they are less than the Danish tolls so Dutch and British commerce begins to preferentially use the convenience of the Swedish flag.

This angers the Danish crown, who depend upon the tolls paid by the Dutch and British ships for much of their income. When Denmark announces that as of January 1st, 1718 they are rescinding Sweden's exemption from the Sound Toll, Charles XII declares this an abrogation of the Treaty of Travendal in 1700 which committed Denmark to upholding all previous Dano-Swedish treaties and demands that the exmption be reinstated. The Dutch- and British-owned ships flying under the Swedish flag continue to stick close to the Swedish coast to avoid the toll. On March 7th a Scottish-crewed ship is sunk by the Danish at Helsingør but some crew make it to Helsingborg in Sweden and on the 9th Charles XII declares war and requests the Travendal guarantors swift action in support. First the Swedish Navy, which has been built up over the last decade and trained by Dutch and British captains, only ferries troops into northern Jutland as well as backing up their Holstein-Gottop allies who attack from the south, but on November the 1st the bombardment of Copenhagen begins after all Holstein and much of Jutland and Schleswig were under Swedish control. It, however is just a distraction as Charles XII shows once again his military brilliance by sailing from Gothenburg up the Frederikssund and disgorging his army in Roskilde on November the 2nd. Because the Danes are expecting the Swedish attack to come from across the Øresund from behind the bombardment, Charles XII's "attack from behind" is a near complete surprise resulting in the collapse of the Danish forces.

Frederick IV of Denmark and his family escape in the confusion past the Swedish troops and attempt to make it to Iceland by sea. The ship's rigging is damaged by a lucky cannon shot at night but still manages to escape to the North Sea. There, they encounter a British Naval vessel which offers to help guide them to Edinburgh after they claim they are a Swedish trade ship beset upon by Danes. Several of the British sailors, though, had worked on merchant ships run out of Gothenburg and knew the difference between Danish and Swedish accents and alerted their officers. The British, as guarantors of Travendal, had been looking for something like this once it had become apparent that the Danish royal family had disappeared. The ship is escorted to Edinburgh, supposedly as teh British ship was heading there themselves for resupply and would be more than happy to make sure the Swedish ship with its damaged rigging would get their since they had though their were closing in on London. When the two ships arrived at Edinburgh, the royal family was confronted and placed "under diplomatic protection" before eventually ending up in the Tower of London palace.

Meanwhile, Charles XII clais the throne of Denmark through his mother, Ulrike Eleonara, who was the daughter of Frederick III of Denmark and aunt to Frederick IV. When the diplomatic arrest of the Danish royal family is made known a month later, Charles demands that the Travendal guarantors uphold his claim to the Danish throne as the closest male relative after Frederick's brother, the withdrawn bachelor Prince Charles, who escaped with his brother's household.

The United Provinces upholds Charles XII's claim to the Danish throne for commercial reasons and George I of Great Britain follows suit after Charles XII promises a stipend for Frederick IV's family if they renounce all claims to the Danish throne. Frederick IV holds out hope for return into 1720 as sporadic fighting continues to erupt across Jutland but the peace slowly returns after Charles XII extends the taxation and legal reforms he implemented in Sweden to Denmark and Norway, which are well received.

On finally receiving word of Frederick IV's capitulation in June of 1720, Charles XII is crowned as "King of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, Grand Prince of Finland, Duke of Ingria, Estonia, Livonia, Schleswig, Holstein and Pomerania, Prince of Pskov and Novgorod" on July 1st, 1720, in Stockholm, and over the next six months in the local capitals of each of those realms.

If this is what you're going for, I'm afraid I'll have to call it out as too much of a Caroluboo-wank and say that it crosses into ASB-territory.

You don't build up a capable navy in just a couple of years. It takes decades. And the Swedish Navy in the 17th and 18th centuries was incapable of doing anything right, so in a war against Denmark they would have to rely on British, French and Dutch support - just like they did in 1700. The British, French and Dutch, however, only supported Sweden in 1700 because they were afraid of Denmark defeating Sweden and gaining the upper hand in the Baltic. In a scenario such as this one, they wouldn't support Sweden, since they're just as wary of Sweden gaining the upper hand (1658) as Denmark (1679, 1700). One country annexing the other is out of the question.

Besides, how does Charles accomplish all this? You give credit to his military brilliance, but really he wasn't all that great. It was the skill of his soldiers, a result of his father's military reforms, that won him his battles, not his tactics. The Swedish Navy and its leadership was extremely incompetent whilst the Danish Navy has always been the strongest, best led and best organized part of the Danish military, so the Swedish Navy just outmaneuvering the Danish Navy at every turn won't happen. Neither would it be possible for Sweden to navigate through the narrow Danish straits (the Danish Navy, if I remember correctly, possessed top-secret, highly detailed and accurate maps of the country, meaning the Danish Navy would always have a huge advantage should an enemy power try to wrest control of the straits), let alone a narrow fjord. If the Swedish Navy tried to sail into Roskilde Fjord it would get annihilated, it would be suicide. A slight wind would ground their ships, a couple of batteries could sink them, and I'm not even sure the fjord is deep enough for larger ships to sail there. Besides, how would they land a force large enough (in one go, in your story they have the element of surprise) to match, not to mention defeat, the Danish armies? How would they do it through such narrow waters? How would they keep them supplied? This is a 18th century Sealion, sorry.

The Swedish Army wouldn't be able to overrun Denmark in a matter of months. There are several large fortifications to contest with, and the ice has melted long ago. Copenhagen was one of strongest fortified cities in Europe, taking it would be very hard.

Lastly, why does the Danes and Norwegians just accept that this autistic Swedish warmonger now rules their countries? Nationalism developed very early on in Denmark, and invading Swedish armies always had to contend with Danish guerillas - snapphaner and friskytter. One example of this early nationalism can be seen on Bornholm in 1658; the Danish population rebelled, killed the Swedish governor and swore allegiance to the Danish King. When Charles X Gustav stood outside Copenhagen in 1658, he tried to convince the Danes that it didn't matter whether they were ruled by Danes or Swedes. "What difference does it make whether it's King Frederick or King Charles?" he would ask. He didn't win any support because there was a fierce hatred between Danes and Swedes. Danes would never sit by and silently accept Swedish rule, nor would the Swedes accept Danish rule.

And what about Norway? Norway is a tough nut to crack with its harsh winters and many mountains. Invading it would prove arduous, just like it did in real life: It cost Charles his life and it destroyed the remnants of the Carolean army. Even if Denmark should fall, Norway would fight on, you can be sure of that. If the royal family were to evacuate, it would be to Norway and not Iceland. In 1658, when it looked like Denmark might be wiped off the map of Europe, there were actually plans for the royal family to evacuate to, and continue the fight from, Norway. The idea of Charles magically defeating Denmark in a matter of months and then just acquiring Norway in the peace deal is ludicrous.

I like the idea of the TL, but just watch out it doesn't become a wank.

 

[Bytor]

You don't build up a capable navy in just a couple of years. It takes decades.

I'm not relying on the Swedish Navy though. They're a feint, not the main force, and a ferry service. That's all. They don't have beat the Danish Navy, just draw their attention.

Besides, how does Charles accomplish all this? You give credit to his military brilliance, but really he wasn't all that great. It was the skill of his soldiers, a result of his father's military reforms, that won him his battles, not his tactics.

Same thing happens here. Given Charles' accomplishments in the first half of the OTL Great Northern War plus another decade of training, revamping tactics, etc…, I don't think it's as unreasonable to assume similar successes against the Danes. All of that, too, rested on the skill of his generals and staff to implement things. I'm generally not one to go for the "great man of history" theory.

I like the idea of the TL, but just watch out it doesn't become a wank.

I'm not inseparably wedded to the idea of Sweden taking the crown of Denmark - you can see that I have mentioned reconning that part. But with that Gothenburg ploy to raise funds from British and Dutch shipping tolls is going to make the Danes angry and there will be consequences one way or another from it.

 

[Neptune]

Don't be put off by all the negative comments. If you want to write something and share it with the world, then do it. As long as it's written with proper grammar, punctuation, spacing, etc., there'll definitely be people who want to read it.