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?
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).
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.
Chase and capture - or kill - Peter after Narva.
Oh, I thought that Peter pulled a bravely brave Sir Robin there ...Rather difficult to accomplish: Peter left his army before Charles arrived and was already far away.![]()
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 BaelishNot sure what would be the ground for the civil war (Peter already had a son).
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.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).![]()
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.
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.
In November 1700? Peter can't pretend that nothing happened.Punish for what? He did not even declared a war on Sweden.
In November 1700? Peter can't pretend that nothing happened.
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.You are lost in time.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,
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.
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?
That is plan maximum. Most likely nothing would happen, because due to interregnum PLC would be paralysed for months.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.![]()