Charles XII goes for Moscow after Narva 1698

Got this idea from a Hist Channel doco I just saw today bout Peter the Great- so WI after the Swedes' massive victory over the Russians at Narva- due to the Swedish bayonet charge thru the blizzard- Charles decides to strike out for Moscow instead of OTL deciding to go after Poland 1st which enabled Peter to have time to recover for a later confrontation with his Baltic arch-enemy ? Could Russia hev been badly defeated enough to have Peter's aspirations for Great Power status be crushed before they fully came to fruition, or would such a Swedish campaign ahve been perhaps an earlier redux of the OTL scorched earth Poltava campaign of 1709 ?
 
Got this idea from a Hist Channel doco I just saw today bout Peter the Great- so WI after the Swedes' massive victory over the Russians at Narva- due to the Swedish bayonet charge thru the blizzard- Charles decides to strike out for Moscow instead of OTL deciding to go after Poland 1st which enabled Peter to have time to recover for a later confrontation with his Baltic arch-enemy ? Could Russia hev been badly defeated enough to have Peter's aspirations for Great Power status be crushed before they fully came to fruition, or would such a Swedish campaign ahve been perhaps an earlier redux of the OTL scorched earth Poltava campaign of 1709 ?

Melvin Loh

I have often thought this was probably Charles's best chance to avoid defeat in the war. Given the boyar unrest against many of Peter's reforms he might have been able to provoke a revolt, especially if Peter's army was defeated against near Moscow. Provided he was intelligent enough to then make peace with Peter's opponents, possibly with some minimal gains then the eastern borders of his empire would have been a lot more secure.

This in itself might have been enough to persuade the other members of the coalition to make peace. Or possibly something like his quick invasion of Denmark and Saxony=Poland would then be left isolated. Provided that Charles avoid major diplomatic cock-ups, which might be a problem, Sweden could have a markedly longer period of dominance in the Baltic region, especially if Russia is in turmoil and Poland continued to decay.

Steve
 
Melvin Loh

I have often thought this was probably Charles's best chance to avoid defeat in the war. Given the boyar unrest against many of Peter's reforms he might have been able to provoke a revolt, especially if Peter's army was defeated against near Moscow. Provided he was intelligent enough to then make peace with Peter's opponents, possibly with some minimal gains then the eastern borders of his empire would have been a lot more secure.

This in itself might have been enough to persuade the other members of the coalition to make peace. Or possibly something like his quick invasion of Denmark and Saxony=Poland would then be left isolated. Provided that Charles avoid major diplomatic cock-ups, which might be a problem, Sweden could have a markedly longer period of dominance in the Baltic region, especially if Russia is in turmoil and Poland continued to decay.

Steve

I would concur here... That this was probably one of his best chances at a more lasting situation for Sweden. Defeating Peter near Moscow and supporting his opponents would have given Charles time to then turn on Poland who he had determined to be the primary threat. With Russia in Civil unrest ( assuming Peter hasn't been killed at battle, best he was of course) the Swedes can then turn on the Poles and Saxons, that defeat will simply come a bit later, without the annoying Russians making a cock up of his supply lines. and his strategic position in the Baltic. He will have his own client in Poland for a longer time unopposed. Such that when the ceasefire with Denmark expires he is in a position to defend Sweden from their attempts to undo their earlier defeat. He should keep out of intervention in the War of Spanish Succession, there is nothing for Sweden there and keep his gaze firmly affixed on the desired Baltic hegemony. A conservative and inward looking Russia is in his interests as a desired outcome of any Russian Civil strife that may have occurred. In the initial defeat of Peter, he may choose to be magnanimous and take nothing but that wotul not be the way things are done.. so aggrandizement of Ingermanland (he should beware of taking too much though, Pskov and the northern districts of Novgorod would seem to be best to make Ingermanland more secure) is in the cards to some extent and Swedish Karelia.

If this occurs, while the Swedes did have a fledgling colony at one point in the Americas, they don't really need it as they have enough empire in the east in the immediate term with access to many of the same things that the Americas would convey in the outset.
 
First of all the battle of Narva was in late 1700 not 1698. Karl could not
finish the Russians of at that time because Riga was under siege from
the Poles and since that was the biggest city in the empire he had to
relieve them. Moscow at that time was irrelevant, the Russian cities that
counted was Novogorod and Pskov, granted if Karl or rather Rehnsköld
had ignored Riga and attacked Novogorod and Pskov perhaps it would
have ended a littel differently.
 
First of all the battle of Narva was in late 1700 not 1698. Karl could not
finish the Russians of at that time because Riga was under siege from
the Poles and since that was the biggest city in the empire he had to
relieve them. Moscow at that time was irrelevant, the Russian cities that
counted was Novogorod and Pskov, granted if Karl or rather Rehnsköld
had ignored Riga and attacked Novogorod and Pskov perhaps it would
have ended a littel differently.

Your point regarding Riga is taken the POD being that it is only ignored in the short term. I would expect the Poles to make some gains yes in this scenario if Peter and Renskold pursue to take Novgorod or Pskov to safeguard their backs in Ingermanland when they turn back on the Poles in Livland.
 
Look at the situation. Charles only has around 10,000 men, winter is about to set in, and Moscow is a long way off from Estonia. In addition, what would make Charles decide to attack Moscow. In his eyes, Russia had been eliminated as a threat, so there was no reason to continue to Moscow.

Even if he does decide to march on Moscow, he's going to have to deal with the same problems he met on the 1708 invasion, except that he hasn't prepared as much for this campaign as he did for the actual invasion in 1708, he has less men, and he would be marching in the dead of winter.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I have a hard time see Charles XII succesful, after Narva he could either go after Peter the Great or August the Strong. He chose August, which was the wrong answered, but if he had gone after Peter, wouldn't August prove to be the same problem as Peter was OTL.
 
I have a hard time see Charles XII succesful, after Narva he could either go after Peter the Great or August the Strong. He chose August, which was the wrong answered, but if he had gone after Peter, wouldn't August prove to be the same problem as Peter was OTL.[/quote
Perhaps but in my opinion he should have gone after Pskov and
Novgorod in the spring 1701, at that time there were a second army
raised at home around 10 000 men, they could have tried to relieve
Riga, the problem with Karl was that he was a rather arrogant
teenager unvilling to listen to advise from among others Rehnsköld
probably the best general we had at that time, it was he who planned
the assault at Narva.
 
First of all the battle of Narva was in late 1700 not 1698. Karl could not
finish the Russians of at that time because Riga was under siege from
the Poles and since that was the biggest city in the empire he had to
relieve them. Moscow at that time was irrelevant, the Russian cities that
counted was Novogorod and Pskov, granted if Karl or rather Rehnsköld
had ignored Riga and attacked Novogorod and Pskov perhaps it would
have ended a littel differently.
Actually Riga was besieged by Saxon army, Poles were neutral until attacked by Sweden. And what made Novgorod and Pskov more relevant than Moscow?
 
The big question is rather, what to do after Düna 1701? Riga is safe, the Danes are out, Russia has no real army to talk about.

Karl XII was not the supremely bad strategist that everybody thought he was - his idea behind marching into Poland was to place a friendly king on Poland's throne and have an ally against the Russians - facing both Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would surely see the Russians undone, or so was the idea. The war took much longer than expected, but Karl XII was stubborn and did not want to throw away victories and efforts placed in Poland, while Tsar Peter built up and trained a modern Russian army against the smaller Swedish forces in Livonia and Ingria.

If Karl XII had marched against Peter 1702 instead of into Poland? Saxony had problems keeping the Poles in line at the time (the Polish Sejm considered the Commonwealth to be neutral in the conflict) and the Swedish army had shown itself to be decidedly superior to the Saxonian and its mercenary German and Polish units. Riga could probably have been held against all Saxonian comers and August perhaps convinced to focus on centralising the Commonwealth rather than foreign adventures (going after Livonia was a way to win prestige in the Commonwealth enough to get such things done).

If Karl XII goes after Russia spring 1702, the Saxonians wont be able to help like the Russians did in Poland and Peter is probably in for a world of hurt. A Russian collapse is unlikely, but a peace might be attainable.

If the Swedes can force the Russians out by autumn 1704 (perhaps possible?), then Denmark, the Commonwealth, Prussia and Hannover might look elsewhere for opponents.
 
Well, Karl's attack on Moscow could butterfly Napoleon's disaster of 1812 away by proving that it isn't possible to get Russian Bear in his lair, but little else could be achieved, provided that Peter would not perish. There was very little appetite among Russian elites of the day to co-operate with foreign power to advance their internal political agenda (Times of Troubles taught them that), so I would suspect that TLs based on Swedes exploiting internal Russian turmoil are more wishful thinking than solid ideas. Karl could give Russian armies grief until cows come home, Peter would always have another army to throw at him (BTW, I just love the fact that median of Swedish claim of Russian losses, as posted in WP, exceeds well-documented strength of Russian army pre-battle; did Russian army included undead Zombies too?).

Seriously speaking, it all would depend on Peter's guts. Karl would not be able to defeat him in proper "European" sense of the term, neither is Karl likely to find hordes of Quislings among Russians in 1700. However, I can see Peter making unfavourable peace, especially if he would be trapped (the way he did during Prut disaster).

Peter's death is the most intriguing idea, but butterflies are far too great to speak of in general terms. When did he perished? Who else fell? Did he appoint an official regent for little Alexei (just 10 during 1st Narva)? Who? Peter is one of few figures in world history about whom it might be said that they created the wave as much as they rode it...
 
Say that the Swedish army manages to pin and defeat Peter in a pitched battle 1703, then what? If Peter is alive, he will look for a place to build his new capitol elsewhere. Courland, perhaps? Could St Petersburg end up south of the Düna and Riga north? Sweden could get Russian Karelia to annex to Kexholm (and in the long run, although no-one cares about it at the time, all of Karelia and the Kola peninsula) and perhaps some land along the Neva to annex to Inrgia?

A sensible deal for Sweden, directing Russian attention southwards, towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth rather than Finland, Ingria and Livonia, but it is a deal that neither Peter nor Karl might see that way at the time.

The Russians are bound to come for the mouth of the Neva sooner or later though, and to try to expand their control of the mouth of the Düna and the Latvian bay sooner or later. The big question is how strong Sweden remains after this alternate Great Nordic War and how the brewing conflict with Hannover over the mouths of the Weser and Elbe (and the Swedish lands of Bremen and Verden in between) and with Prussia over the mouth of the Oder (and Swedish Pommerania) is handled.
 
Actually Riga was besieged by Saxon army, Poles were neutral until attacked by Sweden. And what made Novgorod and Pskov more relevant than Moscow?
You are right my mistake, it was in fact Saxons and Russians. Novgorod
and Pskov were staginggrounds and supplydepots for the Russian army
and at least pskov had a cannonfoundry, losing these would make very
difficult for the Russians since the area between Moscow and Novgorod
then consisted of wilderness with vast forests, swamps and hills. That
fact would have made moving an army very difficult not to mention
artillery, furthermore there are no navigable rivers, securing those
two places and putting garrisons there would secure Karls flank
while he dealt with the siege of Riga.
 
Belive this was Charles biggest mistake, or if he had done the Narva and polish campaign maybe Poltava.
But the title says he went for Moscow and I think it would end up bad for the swedes either way. Father Winter and a long travel ( well, not as long as to Bender :D ) would have killed the attack off.
 
Top