Decisive Swedish victory at the Düna (1701)?

Was it possible in the first place? Preferably with Augustus killed or captured.

Supposing it was, with Saxony forced out of the war, Charles can now avoid his long and costly Lithuanian-Polish-Saxon campaign, which arguably cost him the war, as it allowed Peter’s Russia critical time to recover and reform, with successful advances into Ingria and the Baltic provinces until the disasters of 1705-06.

With no threat from formally neutral Poland, Charles can now commence his invasion of Russia in 1702, likely marching through Pskov-Novgorod-Tver, approaching Moscow from the north. If Peter suffers a defeat near Moscow, then the conservative elements opposed to his Westernization will likely revolt, placing his son Alexei on the throne and making peace with Sweden (what would the conditions be?). Russia’s rise is now delayed a few decades, depending. The Swedish Empire, under the Northern Alexander, now has strengthened prestige with the aura of military invincibility remaining. But I feel Charles will involve himself in more wars, rather than govern peacefully. Swedish intervention in the Spanish Succession War as a Bourbon ally or a renewed war with Denmark-Norway are always possibilities. Nevertheless, a Poltava-style defeat (in Germany) will result in the end of Swedish hegemony in the Baltic. Too many greedy enemies.

But the big winner here is Poland-Lithuania. She has avoided the devastation which caused her to become nothing more than a Russian satellite. I feel the szlachta will elect James Louis Sobieski with Augustus out of the picture. A strong-willed ruler can transform the Commonwealth before its too late. With such prospects, Poland can remain at least a middle power into the 18th century.
 
Was it possible in the first place? Preferably with Augustus killed or captured.

You have to define what you mean by "decisive". It was quite decisive as far as relieving Riga and breaking up the allied troops forcing them to retreat in the different directions. Probably Charles could inflict the greater losses and to pursue Saxons more effectively if he managed to get his cavalry across the river. OTOH, let's not exaggerate the Swedish abilities: the total army was 14K of which 7K were engaged and the Swedish-Russian force was 29K out of which 13K were engaged. Taking into an account that the Saxons and Russians had been retreating in the different directions, probably it was difficult to destroy both, especially because before starting pursuit Charles had to take Mitau and Kokenhusen.

As for August, AFAIK, he was with an army but not on a battlefield so the chance of his capture or death was rather slim.

Supposing it was, with Saxony forced out of the war, Charles can now avoid his long and costly Lithuanian-Polish-Saxon campaign, which arguably cost him the war, as it allowed Peter’s Russia critical time to recover and reform, with successful advances into Ingria and the Baltic provinces until the disasters of 1705-06.

With no threat from formally neutral Poland, Charles can now commence his invasion of Russia in 1702, likely marching through Pskov-Novgorod-Tver, approaching Moscow from the north. If Peter suffers a defeat near Moscow, then the conservative elements opposed to his Westernization will likely revolt, placing his son Alexei on the throne and making peace with Sweden (what would the conditions be?). Russia’s rise is now delayed a few decades, depending.

Well, as most of the similar scenarios, this one is being based upon a number of the highly questionable premises:

1. "marching through Pskov-Novgorod-Tver" sounds nice on paper but after defeat at Narva fortifications of both Pskov and Novgorod had been strengthened and Charles did not have heavy artillery (as a result, he was kicking his hills around Poltava with its wooden stockade, earthworks and a tiny garrison with very limited supply of gunpowder and almost no artillery). So "marching through" would actually involve sieges. Of course, it is an open question why would he be making a considerable hook marching from Pskov to Novgorod and then to Tver or why wouldn't he march from Riga to Vitebsk - Smolensk (again, strongly fortified) - Moscow. Needless to say that Moscow already was fortified and would be fortified even more.

2. An underlying idea that the Swedes did not need a food and their horses forage is not going well with the known facts and Peter would most obviously use the scorched earth tactics just as he did later in OTL quite effectively, forcing Charles to turn South. So, in any route you chose, how Charles is going to supply his army? He is marching for approximately 500 miles of a barren land with opponent having a lot of the irregular troops to prevent effective foraging by the small parties. Typically, Charles did not carry with his army a big supply train feeding it off the land. This had been causing serious problems during Grodno campaign (Swedes had been forced to move far away from the blockaded city thus allowing Ogilvi to escape) and later (when he could not wait for Lewenhaupt to arrive and marched away due to the same reason, shortage of food). Taking into an account that there is at least one major siege on the way, supply situation is getting to be a major factor.

3. Why would Peter suddenly decide to give a battle near Moscow unless he has something like 9:1 probability of a victory is an enigma even if it is a common assumptions in "wanking Charles" scenarios, probably because it resolves most of the obvious problems. Moscow would be fortified (AFAIK, by that time it still had few fortified "cities") but it was not critically important for Peter and he could be just fine with using his regular and irregular cavalry to harass Swedes during the siege. Taking into an account that in 1702 it was much more wooden than in 1812, taking it by storm would result is getting possession of the coals. Not to mention that the city is crossed by a reasonably wide river (100 - 120m wide near Kremlin). Nappy at least had something like 90K and some existing bridges.

4. My "favorite" is a seemingly popular part about the "conservative elements opposed to his Westernization" capable to overthrow Peter. It is being repeated in all "wanking Charles" scenarios that I saw but so far I did not see a single specific name mentioned. The most "conservative" (AFAIK, he never even bothered to wear the Western costume) figure of Peter's regime was Prince-Caesar Fyodor Romodanovsky. Unfortunately for the idea, he was also the least likely figure to lead anti-Petrian plot (being a head of Preobrazhensky prikaz, Peter's precursor of KGB). List of those in power was "who is who in Russia" and these people were not against "Westernization". The only persons who later dared to oppose Peter on some occasions were Prince Jackob Dolgorukov (in 1702 POW in Sweden) who was an active Peter's supporter since 1689 and Boris Sheremetev, Peter's leading general, field marshal, Knight of the Maltese Order, the 1st Russian count and the most "westernized" person in Russia (his objections were mostly about the cruelties and he had enough of a moral authority to refuse signing a document condemning Tsarevich Alexey and to get away with it). And another unanswered question is why Peter would be overthrown if Swedes took Moscow? Strategically, it would mean close to nothing because there still was a huge strategic depth and a lot of available reserves while 30 - 40K Swedes in (burned) Moscow are more or less an annoyance with a main problem how to make it back home. As far as prestige is involved, well, Moscow was in the Polish hands during the ToT. Loss of the city? It was burning on a regular basis (what do you want from a mostly wooden city) and easily rebuilt.
220px-Romodan.jpg


5. If Peter is dead in 1702, then Alexey is a Tsar and because he is 12 years old the head of a government is who? Fyodor Romodanovsky. He was routinely and officially left as a head of the government during Peter's absences so good luck to any opposition (the man was a sadist even by the standards of the time). The same goes for a speedy peace: Charles wanted restoration of the status quo and this was against the interests of the Russian nobility because Swedes controlled Russian grain exports and Western imports through the Baltic ports (mostly Narva) and not paying the custom dues was much better for the Russian nobility than paying it (their main income was from the raw materials and grain produced on their estates). The idea was not Peter's: his father fought a war with Sweden over this issue and lost mostly because he was simultaneously fighting the PLC. Here Russia does not have any distractions, has plenty of troops and seemingly unlimited opportunity to raise more (as was demonstrated by OTL).



The Swedish Empire, under the Northern Alexander, now has strengthened prestige with the aura of military invincibility remaining. But I feel Charles will involve himself in more wars, rather than govern peacefully. Swedish intervention in the Spanish Succession War as a Bourbon ally or a renewed war with Denmark-Norway are always possibilities. Nevertheless, a Poltava-style defeat (in Germany) will result in the end of Swedish hegemony in the Baltic. Too many greedy enemies.

Charles could not govern peacefully: he had an army which, IIRC, Riksdag was rather reluctant to maintain in a time of peace. And even in an unlikely even of the treaty with Russia, as soon as he is marching to Germany the peace is over and Russian troops are invading Livonia.

But the big winner here is Poland-Lithuania. She has avoided the devastation which caused her to become nothing more than a Russian satellite. I feel the szlachta will elect James Louis Sobieski with Augustus out of the picture. A strong-willed ruler can transform the Commonwealth before its too late. With such prospects, Poland can remain at least a middle power into the 18th century.

Well, to start with, if August is out, then there is a need to establish a new king in the PLC, which means that Charles would have to spend some quality time there. Of course, as soon as he is out, there would be a confederation against his candidate and, IMHO, the PLC szlachta was quite capable of doing a lot of damage to their own country even without the foreign help. "A strong-willed ruler" would need a lot of a military support to do anything and having "Swedish puppet" written on a forehead is not going to help. Especially if he starts trying to conduct some meaningful reforms.
 
Top