How could the Swedish have won the Great Northern War?

Crystal

Gone Fishin'
What would have had to have happened in order for the Swedish to emerge victorious from the war? And what would happen afterwards to Sweden, Russia and the rest of Europe?
 
What would have had to have happened in order for the Swedish to emerge victorious from the war? And what would happen afterwards to Sweden, Russia and the rest of Europe?

Answer to the 1st question is simple: Charles would have to agree to one of the peace proposals which Peter made and which would return him all lost Baltic provinces except of Ingria (which was practically uninhabitable except for the newly-built St-Petersburg).

As for the 2nd, there are multiple options.
 
I heard from somewhere that Charles could have marched on Moscow and captured it in 1709, had he gone for it instead of Poltava, since the winter blizzards were milder in the former. He could have occupied the city and forced Peter to surrender. Charles could, then, negotiate from a position of strength (which could lead to Poland-Lithuania retaining Smolensk).
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Chase and capture - or kill - Peter after Narva.
Russia descends into Civil War - even if not, it should no longer be a threat.
Smolensk was lost to the PLC in 1654 physically - and in 1667 by treaty - unless you mean regaining?
 
Best case scenario for Sweden: Augustus the Strong dies at the very begining of GNW, Saxon siege of Riga ends, Charles XII doesn't need to punish his Saxon cousin, because God himself did it for him. All wrath of Carl is directed against Peter. PLC with new King (likely Jakub Sobieski) decides to use opportunity to regain lost eastern territories, Ottomans also join. Peter is killed by random artillery shell, Russia now faces worst crisis since Time of Troubles.
 
I heard from somewhere that Charles could have marched on Moscow and captured it in 1709, had he gone for it instead of Poltava, since the winter blizzards were milder in the former.

Even a superficial look at the map will tell you that Poltava is considerably further to the South than Moscow so, if anything, winter of 1708/9 would be probably worse there. :)

BTW, isn't at least a little bit strange that the Swedes proved to be unprepared to a cold winter?

He could have occupied the city and forced Peter to surrender. Charles could, then, negotiate from a position of strength (which could lead to Poland-Lithuania retaining Smolensk).

Wow! Where did you get that from? To start with, Moscow is MUCH further, especially if you start from Saxony and marching through Belorussia. Then, of course, there were additional factors: (a) expectation of a friendly welcome in Ukraine and (b) supply column of Lewenhaupt marching from Courland.

Then, of course, an idea that capture of Moscow was a meaningful way to force Russians to surrender already was compromised during the Time of the Troubles when the PLC troops had been holding it (according to Fieldmarshal Montgomery, going to capture Moscow is a violation of one of the fundamental laws of war but neither Monty's wisdom nor Nappy's experience were not available to Charles :confused:). If there was a place about which Peter was not giving a damn, it was Moscow. Let's assume that Charles took it and the big part of it is not burned to the ground (it was a predominantly wooden city even in 1812). And he is staying there and keep staying there in the middle of nowhere and eventually, it may come even into his empty head that he is not closer to the peace than when he started marching.

There was already a comment regarding "Retaining"Smolensk by PLC.

There were 2 meaningful things that Charles could do in 1708 if he still was sane and could think rationally:
1st, agree to Peter's peace proposal and to get back all Baltic provinces except Ingria.

2nd, to march to the Baltic provinces and start kicking Peter's troops out of them. Perhaps try to take Novgorod. By the end he could get back everything, including Ingria but he could also get Poltava Battle somewhere in these provinces. His army (a superb force by 1708) would be melting away while Peter's army was steadily gaining in quality (at Lesnaya it managed to defeat approximately equal number of Swedees; of course, the numbers are varying depending on the sourse) was not very good in the siege warfare: he started sieges of Poltava (a weakly fortified place even by the Russian standards of the time) in the early April and was still besieging it in June. His main (by Charles' opinion, "our little Vauban") specialist in the sieges, Axel Gyllenkrok, rather skeptically assessed his own skills: "God help us with Vauban like me".
 
Best case scenario for Sweden: Augustus the Strong dies at the very begining of GNW, Saxon siege of Riga ends, Charles XII doesn't need to punish his Saxon cousin, because God himself did it for him. All wrath of Carl is directed against Peter. PLC with new King (likely Jakub Sobieski) decides to use opportunity to regain lost eastern territories, Ottomans also join. Peter is killed by random artillery shell, Russia now faces worst crisis since Time of Troubles.

Nice try but the timing is off: on February 22 and June 15, 1700 while Peter declared war on Sweden only in August and started attack on Narva only in October when the Saxons still could be considered a meaningful fighting force. In other words, there is nothing for Charles to be angry about by the time of August's death (after which Peter would pretend that nothing was happening and that he had no designs against his Swedish brother). :openedeyewink:
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Rather difficult to accomplish: Peter left his army before Charles arrived and was already far away. :)
Oh, I thought that Peter pulled a bravely brave Sir Robin there ...

Not sure what would be the ground for the civil war (Peter already had a son).
Different factions fight for custody/regency. I'm fairly certain that there'd be a traditionalists-Old Nobility versus modernists-Peter's upjumped riff-raff ... Menshikoff can be said to have been Russia's Petyr Baelish :)
All in all Russia becomes focused on itself for a time.

An idea I've seen for Sweden/Karl XII doing better is going for Saxony proper in 1702 - or 1703 latest - instead of chasing Augusts across Poland.
 
Nice try but the timing is off: on February 22 and June 15, 1700 while Peter declared war on Sweden only in August and started attack on Narva only in October when the Saxons still could be considered a meaningful fighting force. In other words, there is nothing for Charles to be angry about by the time of August's death (after which Peter would pretend that nothing was happening and that he had no designs against his Swedish brother). :openedeyewink:
It could happen even in November-without Wettin King of PLC Saxon siege of Riga is pointless and ends quickly. Charles XII with his codex of honour was not resonable man-he wanted to punish treacherous Augustus, he has seen it as his duty and chased him for years. Now Augustus is dead and Peter is the bad guy who need to be punished.
 
Oh, I thought that Peter pulled a bravely brave Sir Robin there ...


Different factions fight for custody/regency. I'm fairly certain that there'd be a traditionalists-Old Nobility versus modernists-Peter's upjumped riff-raff ... Menshikoff can be said to have been Russia's Petyr Baelish :)
All in all Russia becomes focused on itself for a time.

Regarding "Old Nobility", list of Peter's closest associates looks pretty much as "Who is who": Sheremetiev, Repnin, Golitsins, Dolgoruki, Appraxin, etc.
 
It could happen even in November-without Wettin King of PLC Saxon siege of Riga is pointless and ends quickly. Charles XII with his codex of honour was not resonable man-he wanted to punish treacherous Augustus, he has seen it as his duty and chased him for years. Now Augustus is dead and Peter is the bad guy who need to be punished.

Punish for what? He did not even declared a war on Sweden.
 
In November 1700? Peter can't pretend that nothing happened.

You are lost in time. :p If August is killed during the siege of Riga (check when the Saxon sieges happened), then Peter has few months to think about declaration of war and, unless he is a complete idiot, nothing happens.
 
You are lost in time. :p If August is killed during the siege of Riga (check when the Saxon sieges happened), then Peter has few months to think about declaration of war and, unless he is a complete idiot, nothing happens.
OK. My mistake about timing of siege. But with Augustus dying after Russian invasion of Ingria, whole war lost any sense for Saxons-Augustus wanted Riga to create hereditary Wettin Baltic Duchy there, to secure his son's election to the Polish throne in the future. Now, with Augustus dead it makes no sense, Wettin rule in PLC is over, Augustus' son is 4 years old Protestant boy, no one would even think about electing him. So Saxons go home. Augustus' case is lost with him. Now Charles does not need to care about Augustus, could put all his attention on Russians.
 
OK. My mistake about timing of siege. But with Augustus dying after Russian invasion of Ingria,

Actually, they did not invade Ingria until later: they besieged Narva, which was in the Swedish Livonia (even if it served as an administrative center of Ingria as well, due to almost complete lack of a population in Ingria). Bad timing AND geography. :p

And why would August suddenly drop dead? It is not like he had an unhealthy tendency of leading his troops personally or suffered from the noticeable health issues.

whole war lost any sense for Saxons-Augustus wanted Riga to create hereditary Wettin Baltic Duchy there, to secure his son's election to the Polish throne in the future. Now, with Augustus dead it makes no sense, Wettin rule in PLC is over, Augustus' son is 4 years old Protestant boy, no one would even think about electing him. So Saxons go home. Augustus' case is lost with him. Now Charles does not need to care about Augustus, could put all his attention on Russians.

Well, it starts getting dangerously close to the "if grandma had .... she would be a granddad" ;) type of wishful thinking. Why would August suddenly die? With the same success I can propose Charles breaking his neck while training his cavalry troops or just being shot in some skirmish (he was founded few times): unlike August, who seemingly tended take a good care of his personal hide, Charles was a risky person. How about: when personally leading a column of his troops at Narva (which he did) Charles was shot or, to make it a little bit fancier, his horse was shot (which IIRC happened) and, while trying to get from under it, he got bayonet wound in the stomach and died in a couple of days. Unlike your scenario, this one has a very high probability.

As for Charles putting his attention, etc. there is a tiny problem. As long as there is a will to resist, he could not do too much to Russia: the spaces are too big, his army is too small and Peter's ability to raise the new armies are too great. Yes, he can march here and there, burn few wooden cities (which were routinely burned in a peace time, including Moscow) and keep breaking his head against even marginally fortified ones. With an overwhelming number of the irregulars in his possession and scorched earth policy (which he used in 1708) Peter could easily make life of the invading troops miserable and the further they go, the lesser is their chance to get back.

But, getting back to Charles' personality, he was looking for a complete restitution of all lands lost. To which in this scenario Peter has no problem to agree because on the early stage he got nothing: Sheremetiev's troops are just doing a little bit of a looting in Livonia. The deal is struck, the old Russian-Swedish agreements are confirmed, Charles is victorious and proudly marching <not sure in which direction>. An idea that he is going to fight with a noble purpose of returning Smolensk to the Poles, strikes me as extremely unrealistic.
 
Augustus dying is wishful thinking? He could just fell from horse or stairs or window after few days of heavy drinking, is it really impossible?
 
Augustus dying is wishful thinking? He could just fell from horse or stairs or window after few days of heavy drinking, is it really impossible?

It is possible but not interesting because the only purpose of the whole "exercise" is to help Charles XII to conquer Smolensk for the Poles (to whom, AFAIK, he did not feel any sympathy). Of course, your patriotic feelings are duly appreciated. :winkytongue:
 
It is possible but not interesting because the only purpose of the whole "exercise" is to help Charles XII to conquer Smolensk for the Poles (to whom, AFAIK, he did not feel any sympathy). Of course, your patriotic feelings are duly appreciated. :winkytongue:
That is plan maximum. Most likely nothing would happen, because due to interregnum PLC would be paralysed for months.
 
Top