Could Sweden win Northern Wars?

[Elfwine]

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.

Capturing or killing the tsar does put the Swedes in a good position in regards to ending the war, but I find the idea that the Russians have Peter and no one else in regards to leadership (not modernity, leadership) a bit much.

As for population: Did they really have such a large population? Russia (in 1700) has - according to the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - 17.5 million people. That's not an endless horde of Russians, but I think Poland-Lithuania is half that - maybe richer, but smaller.

 

[Cecil]

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).

Both were standing at around 8 million at the time. Russia has potential yes but you would be surprised to see how little this potential is located inside the Russia of circa 1700 itself. Cut out the Lithuanian part of the commonwealth and the Ukraine which wasnt secure to say the least and the rest aint exactly a breadbasket. They are also desperate for a major outlet for trade, without it they are going to end up a great deal poorer than OTL. Peters fixation on St Petersburg was not a figment of some sort of mania but rather cold logical reasoning in what his country required.

 

[Cecil]

Capturing or killing the tsar does put the Swedes in a good position in regards to ending the war, but I find the idea that the Russians have Peter and no one else in regards to leadership (not modernity, leadership) a bit much.

As for population: Did they really have such a large population? Russia (in 1700) has - according to the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - 17.5 million people. That's not an endless horde of Russians, but I think Poland-Lithuania is half that - maybe richer, but smaller.

Massie puts the population at about 8 million. Granted this is 10-15 years earlier but I hardly think it managed to double in that short of a time period.

 

[Falecius]

Both were standing at around 8 million at the time. Russia has potential yes but you would be surprised to see how little this potential is located inside the Russia of circa 1700 itself. Cut out the Lithuanian part of the commonwealth and the Ukraine which wasnt secure to say the least and the rest aint exactly a breadbasket. They are also desperate for a major outlet for trade, without it they are going to end up a great deal poorer than OTL. Peters fixation on St Petersburg was not a figment of some sort of mania but rather cold logical reasoning in what his country required.

I've just googled around. There are figures giving as less as 3 millions people in Poland in 1650, that is, right before the Deluge, but I honestly don't know how reliable can they be.
However, Sweden was in the one million people league, so hugely outmatched by both Russia and the PLC anyway.

 

[Falecius]

Both were standing at around 8 million at the time. Russia has potential yes but you would be surprised to see how little this potential is located inside the Russia of circa 1700 itself. Cut out the Lithuanian part of the commonwealth and the Ukraine which wasnt secure to say the least and the rest aint exactly a breadbasket. They are also desperate for a major outlet for trade, without it they are going to end up a great deal poorer than OTL. Peters fixation on St Petersburg was not a figment of some sort of mania but rather cold logical reasoning in what his country required.

And you are right about trade outlets. Swedish war aims weren't about conquering the Poland or Russia in themeselves, or any significant amount of their land, rather controlling their trade outlets (there was talk of taking or destroying Arhangelsk for instance). it was still a very ambitious policy, since it meant economic dominance of both.

 

[Cecil]

I've just googled around. There are figures giving as less as 3 millions people in Poland in 1650, that is, right before the Deluge, but I honestly don't know how reliable can they be.
However, Sweden was in the one million people league, so hugely outmatched by both Russia and the PLC anyway.

Actually the combined swedish kingdom had slightly north of 3 million at the time. But you would do well to not look at population numbers alone. This is before the time of levée en masse. Economic strength is as important or moreso than raw numbers.

Just look at the Netherlands at the time. 2 million people but a great power nonetheless.

However I tend to agree that standing alone Sweden cannot hope to stand against the combined might of its neighbours for long luck or no. Best it can do as things stand is kick the can down the road. However if P-L can get its shit together which isnt impossible things dont need to take the route it took OTL.

 

[Shnurre]

Capturing or killing the tsar does put the Swedes in a good position in regards to ending the war, but I find the idea that the Russians have Peter and no one else in regards to leadership (not modernity, leadership) a bit much.

As for population: Did they really have such a large population? Russia (in 1700) has - according to the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - 17.5 million people. That's not an endless horde of Russians, but I think Poland-Lithuania is half that - maybe richer, but smaller.

Sorry don't believe your data is too precise.
According to Vodarsky book(Я.Е. Водарский. "Население России в конце XVII - начале XVIII века"; I don’t know if it was translated into English), which is one of the fullest researches on Russian population in XVII-XVIII centuries, the population of Russia was 11 million in 1678 ( there were 5.6 million males of all ages: females were never counted). In 1719 it was 15 million people( 7.8 million males). So we can estimate that in 1700 the population of Russia was roughly 12-13 million people.
According to “Cezary Kuklo. Demografia Rzeczypospolitej Przedrozbiorowej. — Warsawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2009. — P. 211. — 518 p”. the population of PL Commonwealth was 11 million in 1650 and 12-14 million in 1771.
So in fact populations of Russia and PLC were roughly equal in 1700-1720( probably PLC had a bit more population). The both figures should be around 12-13 million people.

 

[Falecius]

Sorry don't believe your data is too precise.
According to Vodarsky book(Я.Е. Водарский. "Население России в конце XVII - начале XVIII века"; I don’t know if it was translated into English), which is one of the fullest researches on Russian population in XVII-XVIII centuries, the population of Russia was 11 million in 1678 ( there were 5.6 million males of all ages: females were never counted). In 1719 it was 15 million people( 7.8 million males). So we can estimate that in 1700 the population of Russia was roughly 12-13 million people.
According to “Cezary Kuklo. Demografia Rzeczypospolitej Przedrozbiorowej. — Warsawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2009. — P. 211. — 518 p”. the population of PL Commonwealth was 11 million in 1650 and 12-14 million in 1771.
So in fact populations of Russia and PLC were roughly equal in 1700-1720( probably PLC had a bit more population). The both figures should be around 12-13 million people.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. By the way, it was in both cases a rather impressive figure for a European country in this timeframe. I know they were very large countries, but still noticeable.
On the flip side, these people were mostly serfs I guess.

 

[Cecil]

Sorry don't believe your data is too precise.
According to Vodarsky book(Я.Е. Водарский. "Население России в конце XVII - начале XVIII века"; I don’t know if it was translated into English), which is one of the fullest researches on Russian population in XVII-XVIII centuries, the population of Russia was 11 million in 1678 ( there were 5.6 million males of all ages: females were never counted). In 1719 it was 15 million people( 7.8 million males). So we can estimate that in 1700 the population of Russia was roughly 12-13 million people.
According to “Cezary Kuklo. Demografia Rzeczypospolitej Przedrozbiorowej. — Warsawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2009. — P. 211. — 518 p”. the population of PL Commonwealth was 11 million in 1650 and 12-14 million in 1771.
So in fact populations of Russia and PLC were roughly equal in 1700-1720( probably PLC had a bit more population). The both figures should be around 12-13 million people.

I concede the point since your sources seems to be more well researched.

 

[Elfwine]

Sorry don't believe your data is too precise.
According to Vodarsky book(Я.Е. Водарский. "Население России в конце XVII - начале XVIII века"; I don’t know if it was translated into English), which is one of the fullest researches on Russian population in XVII-XVIII centuries, the population of Russia was 11 million in 1678 ( there were 5.6 million males of all ages: females were never counted). In 1719 it was 15 million people( 7.8 million males). So we can estimate that in 1700 the population of Russia was roughly 12-13 million people.
According to “Cezary Kuklo. Demografia Rzeczypospolitej Przedrozbiorowej. — Warsawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2009. — P. 211. — 518 p”. the population of PL Commonwealth was 11 million in 1650 and 12-14 million in 1771.
So in fact populations of Russia and PLC were roughly equal in 1700-1720( probably PLC had a bit more population). The both figures should be around 12-13 million people.

My data says: "As readers familiar with statistis will be aware, such crude figures have to be treated with extreme care. Population totals, especially in the early period, are merely guesses (and in Russia's case the margin for error could be several millions)." Not sure how 17.5 is more precise than "5.6 million males of all ages, assuming an equal number of males to females, 11 million"

France is estimated as 19 million, for those wanting a comparison.

Sources (Kennedy's, not mine, I'm just quoting him): "These figures - all papprxomations - come from a variety of sources, including Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, p. 4; A. Armengaud, 'Population in Europe 1700-1914,' in C.M. Cipolla (ed.), Fortana Economic History of Europe, vol. 3 (1976), pp. 22-75, NCMH, vol. 8, p. 714 . . ."

Of course, Kennedy's book is 25 years old now (and his sources show that), so his research may be supplanted by later work.

@ Cecil: Levees en masse aren't the issue, the fact that a nation of X size can only raise and support so many (native) soldiers still remains a problem.

So while size isn't everything, it certainly shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Cecil]

My data says: "As readers familiar with statistis will be aware, such crude figures have to be treated with extreme care. Population totals, especially in the early period, are merely guesses (and in Russia's case the margin for error could be several millions)." Not sure how 17.5 is more precise than "5.6 million males of all ages, assuming an equal number of males to females, 11 million"

France is estimated as 19 million, for those wanting a comparison.

@ Cecil: Levees en masse aren't the issue, the fact that a nation of X size can only raise and support so many (native) soldiers still remains a problem.

So while size isn't everything, it certainly shouldn't be ignored.

I suppose not but its a source of endless frustration when people backwards project industrial warfare into a period where its not applicable.

 

[Spengler]

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.

This si wha I was going to suggest, also it has to be remembered that the entirety of the Swedish Empire was made up of other nations territory, these other nations shared an enmity with Sweden that were more than happy to take part in alliances to defeat Sweden as happened in several wars. When confronted by massive alliances generally Sweden was put into the situation where it was bat rely holding on.

 

[Snake Featherston]

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.

Which of course is not very easy to do given that Charles XII's Sweden was invaded by three states simultaneously to start with.

 

[Elfwine]

I suppose not but its a source of endless frustration when people backwards project industrial warfare into a period where its not applicable.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure anyone is doing that - there's a reason the Netherlands declined pre-industrial warfare era, and lacking population is part of it.

Picking a country (essentially) uninvolved in the Northern Wars.