How could the Swedish have won the Great Northern War?

That is plan maximum. Most likely nothing would happen, because due to interregnum PLC would be paralysed for months.

This reason is peanuts. The serious reason is that as soon as Charles is going away (which he would as soon as Peter agrees on pre-war borders, which in 1700/01 he would do easily), the Poles suffering from excessively good memory would be dealing with the consequences of their enthusiasm because Peter would be invading the PLC with the obvious consequences: looting, burning, etc. His army was not, yet, up to the Swedish level but PLC is lagging few decades behind: during the GNW both sides had been using it as a battleground with a minimal local opposition.
 
Agree about Smolensk. Nor only is it difficult to defeat the Russians to the point they'd agree to it, but it wouldn't last. Unless Charles XII is literally using the PLC as a scapegoat to draw Russian aggression in the future by setting up conflict between the two in that region, don't see the point.
 
(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:).
LOL.
If there was a place about which Peter was not giving a damn, it was Moscow.
We today judge its importance, but shouldn't forget, at this time, the capital was St Petersberg, & its importance may be gauged by the fact it shares its name with the guy in charge, who founded it. (I invite you to do the math.;) )
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?
Which demonstrates pretty clearly the rule not to invade Russia in winter predates friend Buonaparte, who clearly did not read his Swedish history.:openedeyewink:
 
LOL.

We today judge its importance, but shouldn't forget, at this time, the capital was St Petersberg, & its importance may be gauged by the fact it shares its name with the guy in charge, who founded it. (I invite you to do the math.;) )

When the conversation is about 1700/01 it does not matter what type of a math you are using because St-Petersburg was not founded until 1703 and became an official capital in 1712 (unofficially, in 1704). Not that there was too much there to talk about besides Peter and Paul Fortress and few wooden buildings.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, Saint Peter and Peter I had been 2 distinctively different persons. City in question was named after Peter only in 1914. :openedeyewink:

Moscow had been mentioned because marching to it was proposed in the earlier post as a way to force Peter to capitulate.

Which demonstrates pretty clearly the rule not to invade Russia in winter predates friend Buonaparte, who clearly did not read his Swedish history.:openedeyewink:

Well, to be precise (and boring):

(a) Nappy did not invade Russia in winter.
(b) Charles invaded not Russia but Hetmanate, which was a vassal state of Russia
(c) The Mongols invaded and conquered Central Russia in a single winter campaign.
(d) Monty was talking about marching on Moscow without specifying the season.
:winkytongue:
 
I think the best chance Charles had was invading Russia after they were destroyed at Narva in 1700. After that there was little from Narva to Moscow. Once they were out of the way Poland and Saxony would be forced to come to terms with Charles XII.
 
I think the best chance Charles had was invading Russia after they were destroyed at Narva in 1700. After that there was little from Narva to Moscow.

Yes, only 800+ km of the very bad roads at the winter time. No problem whatsoever.
 
Yes, only 800+ km of the very bad roads at the winter time. No problem whatsoever.
Maybe they may not have been able to go fast but there’s a possibility it could’ve been done. The Swedes basically have the same climate as Russia and would be better suited to it then say France. I also read that the winter was unusually milder that year.
 
Maybe they may not have been able to go fast but there’s a possibility it could’ve been done. The Swedes basically have the same climate as Russia and would be better suited to it then say France. I also read that the winter was unusually milder that year.

I think the more practical question than the chill is what you plan on having them eat?
 
I think the more practical question than the chill is what you plan on having them eat?
If the Russians don’t take on a scorched Earth policy they’d sack a ton of towns. So they can’t do scorched earth, the Swedes would have to really pursue the Russians, catch up with them, and completely destroy them.
 
When the conversation is about 1700/01 it does not matter what type of a math you are using because St-Petersburg was not founded until 1703 and became an official capital in 1712 (unofficially, in 1704). Not that there was too much there to talk about besides Peter and Paul Fortress and few wooden buildings.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, Saint Peter and Peter I had been 2 distinctively different persons. City in question was named after Peter only in 1914. :openedeyewink:

Moscow had been mentioned because marching to it was proposed in the earlier post as a way to force Peter to capitulate.



Well, to be precise (and boring):

(a) Nappy did not invade Russia in winter.
(b) Charles invaded not Russia but Hetmanate, which was a vassal state of Russia
(c) The Mongols invaded and conquered Central Russia in a single winter campaign.
(d) Monty was talking about marching on Moscow without specifying the season.
:winkytongue:
Picky, picky, picky.:mad: ( :openedeyewink: )

Yeah, you caught me...:oops::oops:
 
If the Russians don’t take on a scorched Earth policy they’d sack a ton of towns. So they can’t do scorched earth, the Swedes would have to really pursue the Russians, catch up with them, and completely destroy them.

Ah, but this is pretty sparsely populated territory of marginal agricultural productivity with poor infrastructure in the middle of winter. That means you're going to have to disperse the army very thinly, requisition with vegence which will produce a lot of resistance, and send out a great many foraging parties to have a prayer of keeping your men healthy enough to march at a reasonable speed and fend off illness, else Charles see his army melt away to attrition. Russian cavalry detachments are going to have a field day, and the Swedish armies are only going to be able to concentrate to the extent they can give battle for infrequent and relatively short bursts of time; made all the shorter by the need to pull the widely dispersed groups together with early 18th century communication technology. This means the Ruskies are going to have to royally drop the ball and Charles be EXTREMELY lucky for the stars to align and give him the decisive battle he needs while he still has an army in good enough shape to win it
 
Maybe they may not have been able to go fast but there’s a possibility it could’ve been done.

Going slowly would not make thing better.:cool:

Of course, it is not impossible to went from the Baltic coast to Moscow: there was a merchant traffic after all. But to march that distance with an army of 40K (less in 1700) against active opposition is a completely different story (for those ready to bring up parallel with the Time of Troubles, unlike the Polish armies of that time, Charles and his Swedes did not have a speed advantage).

And, taking into a consideration that the final target was quite useless in the terms of ending the war, what would be the point in this exercise?


The Swedes basically have the same climate as Russia and would be better suited to it then say France. I also read that the winter was unusually milder that year.

To start from the climate, notion of "climate of Russia" makes approximately as much sense as "climate in the US" (actually even less): even in the early XVIII Russia was stretching over few climate zones. Then, of course, goes an obvious fact that climate in Sweden (a "coastal" country) is not the same as in the Central Russia ("continental climate") where the temperature differences between winter and summer are much greater and air is drier. Part of the Ukraine in which Charles spent all that exciting time is well to the South from Central Russia which means that it, on average, milder than, say, near Moscow. As for France, in case you forgot, the Scandinavians settled in the Northern France (hence "Normandy") and they did not have visible problems establishing kingdom in Sicily or serving in Byzantine armies which seemingly indicates that a milder climate was just fine with them.
 
Well if 1700 won’t work when else can it work out for Charles and how?

Of course, it could work in the early 1701 but this would require a different Charles. Not a bonehead who thinks that all problems can be solved by a bayonet charge and cavalry attack but a statesman with enough of a brain power and mental flexibility to jump to an opportunity and make peace with Peter (who at that point did not, yet, make any conquests at the Swedish expense).
 
(for those ready to bring up parallel with the Time of Troubles, unlike the Polish armies of that time, Charles and his Swedes did not have a speed advantage).
Poles invaded from Belarus, not from Baltic coast, that makes difference and it is reason why PLC was more dangerous than Sweden during ToT-Swedes in worst case could take or ravage northwestern Russia around Pskov and Novgorod, that would not hurt Russia as much as ravaging Central Russia. So for crushing defeat of Russia in GNW, Swedes would need serious support of PLC, which would likely require at least late 16th century POD and different genealogy tree of House of Vasa, that would not require two branches to be mortal enemies like IOTL, (problem us that would butterfly Karl XII and many, many other people).
 
Poles invaded from Belarus, not from Baltic coast, that makes difference and it is reason why PLC was more dangerous than Sweden during ToT

Don't forget that for a big part of the ToT Swedes were Russian allies, not enemies. Russian-Swedish wars are post-ToT.

Swedes in worst case could take or ravage northwestern Russia around Pskov and Novgorod, that would not hurt Russia as much as ravaging Central Russia. So for crushing defeat of Russia in GNW, Swedes would need serious support of PLC, which would likely require at least late 16th century POD and different genealogy tree of House of Vasa, that would not require two branches to be mortal enemies like IOTL, (problem us that would butterfly Karl XII and many, many other people).

It would also require very serious changes within the PLC which are completely outside the scope of this AH.

PLC during the ToT still was a major (and perhaps the greatest) regional military power but by 1700 it deteriorated to almost complete insignificance so the parallels are pretty much pointless.
 
Don't forget that for a big part of the ToT Swedes were Russian allies, not enemies.
Something, that could be easily changed with different family history within House of Vasa (like John III Vasa living untill ripe old age and still alive during ToT, or having additional son with Catherine Jagiellon, so brothers could split the thrones peacefully and disastrous Polish-Swedish personal union is avoided). But it is another story.
 
Something, that could be easily changed with different family history within House of Vasa (like John III Vasa living untill ripe old age and still alive during ToT, or having additional son with Catherine Jagiellon, so brothers could split the thrones peacefully and disastrous Polish-Swedish personal union is avoided). But it is another story.
Exactly. So let's have one mess at the time. :cool:
 
Well if 1700 won’t work when else can it work out for Charles and how?

Charles certainly lost on the diplomatic front, to the point of (effectively) having to fight large chunks of the two decades long conflict on his lonesome; not exactly the kind of war a highly efficient and tactically adapt but low population state is suited to fighting, as the former benefits in any individual move/situation have their effect diluted in the scale of decisions that get made over the period, and the need to pursue battle means you can't effectively not take risks and thus tap into the limited margin for error your manpower provides (Where then the iron law of averages says that, over a long enough period, you'll roll enough 1s to exhaust yourself no matter how brilliant you are). Not that you can blame Sweden for not having a set of allies set up ahead of time; in terms of geopolitics they were on the defensive and reactive even if they took the strategic offensive, but they need friends who could provide the material and financial "bulk" to sustain the war effort long term. Given the War of Spainish Sucession though you really only have the Ottomans to tap.
 
Top