Charles XII of Sweden vs Fredrick II of Prussia

Here's something that has been bothering me for quite sometime. Through out my education and later adult life, I keep hearing of two supposedly invincible fighting forces of the early 18th century. Both of these factions were lead by a charismatic young king whom is reknown for great usage of military strategy and brilliant victories. These men are Charles XII, the King of Sweden and Fredrick II of Prussia.

Assuming that both factions can concentrate on just fighting each other, whom will emerge superior?

Charlex XII and Sweden in general is in the shape that it was just before the Great Northern War began, with an estimated force of around 77,000.

The Prussian side begins after Frederick II's reformation of the army where he has around 70,000 troops to bring to the field.

Take not that this is not a general sort of melee, but a contest where both nations can use any and all assets they have, except foreign aid. All other factions will remain neutral for the duration of the war.
 
Well, By the time Frederick is old enough to lead his armies, Charles will be well into his fifties. Charles is one of those people that it's hard telling what his alternate fate could've been, but we can take a good guess.

But since you are giving a precise parameters, I would say this: Both are gifted, but Charles XII is certainly not the type to give up without a bloody nose and it would take a large loss of men to convince him the campaign was not a good idea. The tech gap Frederick has, though not very large, is large enough that Frederick will massacre Charles' forces. Plus, Frederick was much more willing to give up a fight that is obviously going to fail, and is more likely to stage a tactical retreat than Charles. Not to mention, this is Pre-War Charles, who is over-self-confident in his ability to lead his army as he wishes. Frederick's pragmatic mind is not so naive, even before his first battle.
 
Sweden wins. Prussia has no navy at all, and Sweden has one. Prussia cannot touch Swedish core land, while Sweden can march into the Prussian heartland from Swedish Pommerania, Swedish Bremen or Swedish Wismar.

The Swedish army of Karl XII also proved itself capable of defeating armies up to 8 times its own size in field battles.
 
Swedenès Navy allows them to dominate the Baltic and land at will as the need arises.

Charles XII should he have lived Has probably kept the Swedish Military current in terms of technology...so I don't think there would be a gap.

More importantly though... B-P is likely to be allied to Sweden not opposed. Prussia and Sweden will face a common enemy in Russia in both of Frederick's major wars. Mind you France engineered the Swedish entry into the WAS to distract Russia and Charles is not likely to be disposed in any manner to bow to the wims of France unless he sees something in it for Sweden and unless its on terms that do not offend his personal Honour. He could well see Frederick as acting dishonourably with respect to MT's inheritance and decline to be a party to it.

He will have a genuine grievance against Russia though so could act independently in any case. Russia is going to be wary of him in any case simply because he still exists. Thisassumes of course that all else is relatively the same and the only change is that he didn't die in Norway. Russian inheritance would devolve to the Ivanov line after Elisabeth, she won't have a choice but to rehabilitate them.

Tsar Paul I will probably be in line to be the next King of Sweden rather than Tsar and an admirer of both, and raised in a more military tradition in Sweden than Russia.
 
What is the basis for Paul's claim to the Swedish throne?
Do you mean OTL or in this scenario? OTL Charles XII died without children, and his closest male relation was his nephew, the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp Charles Frederick. However his claim to the throne would be contested and usurped by his aunt/Charles XII's younger sister, Ulrika, who would abdicate in favor of her Prince-consort, Frederick. His line in turn would come to an end in the War of Austrian Succession.

Charles Frederick's son was (Charles) Peter, who would inherit the the duchy and would be for a while the heir to all the Russian, Swedish and Finnish thrones. Quite a popular fellow apparently. Peter would inherit the throne after the death of Emperor Elizabeth of Russia and lose the throne to Catherine the Great. The only son of Peter and Catherine was Paul. Therefore through his father, Paul had claims to both the Russian and Swedish thrones.
 
What is the basis for Paul's claim to the Swedish throne?

He is the most direct male decendent of Charle's elder favourite sister Hedwig. UE was his younger sister, and she became queen only because she was an unmarried princess of Sweden at the time of her accession. if Charles lives that won't be the case. Any heirs she has, if she has any will be junior to Paul's, whoops, that should be Peter ( as in Peter III) not Paul. OTL Charles Frederick married the Empress Anna, probably not going to happen if Charles lives.

The Empress Anna may get the alternate Holstein-Gottorp instead as husband as part of the general peace between Sweden and Russia or some one else entirely of course.
 
Last edited:
Top