I want Charles in charge of me

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Bytor, Apr 17, 2017.

  1. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    Oh. It explains why I remembered Prince of Novgorod as a tsarly title yet you remembered it not as one.
     
  2. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    I see. Glad to be of service. :)

    The whole thing is rather intriguing and, to add to this confusion, title of Ivan III has "and" on the list: "... sovereign of All Russia and Great Prince of Vladimir and Moscow and Novgorod and Pskov and Twer ..." while in the tittle of his successor the "and's" are gone and the "Great Prince" is mentioned twice: 1st in the initial part of a title and then in a 2nd part added to the tile of his predecessor: "... Sovereign of Great Prince of Nizny Novgorod and Chernigov and Ryazan, ..." <etc.>.

    Ivan IV added in the middle "Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan" (clearly separate entities, each with its own title) and to the 2nd list "ruler of the whole Suberian land...."

    Tsar Alexey has "Tsar of Siberia" added to "Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan".

    Can't tell exact meaning of these changes but strongly suspect that the nuances are mostly lost in translation due to the grammatical differences. Anyway, as I said, it is possible to assume that "Great Prince" (or whatever) is used for the "entities" (which could a a list of names).
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    The Professor likes this.
  3. Bytor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Kitchener, ON
    Which all goes out the window once the Tsar is dead and the heir disappears. I know they didn't have strict fiefs as we think of them in Western Europe, but they were still appointed governors and so forth of regions and districts and had local command. Like it or not, with the Tsar gone it would be a bucket of crabs all scrambling to convert those governorates and county administrations into effective principalities, into actual fiefs.

    Canon explode, orientations are muffed. This isn't the era of laser-guided munitions. Or, you know, that Swedish tendency to split and attack form both flanks.

    The Great Northern War, up until the battle of Poltava, is replete with stories of Swedish forces out numbered more than 2:1 in similar situations and they came out victorious. Narva was one such instance where, IIRC, it was almost 4:1 against the Swedes.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    AnonymousSauce likes this.
  4. Bytor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Kitchener, ON
    The city of Kitchener, where I was born and live, isn't sovereign either, but it's inhabitants still have a demonym. I think you might benefit from learning to not read into another words your own assumptions, yes?

    That's kind of the point. This was a 10 year old boy already known to have an antipathy for his father, raised under the tutelage of a regency council of the Boyar Duma who hated his father's reforms and tried to resist them while Tsar Peter was still alive and want a pliant puppet, not a knowledgeable, competent tsar. Do you really think he'll be well informed on the Russian relams, that they more
    than "quelques arpents de neige"?

    Or, you know, maybe just tone down the arrogance when you clearly don't realise what the other person is talking about, hmm?

    Not surprised, but irrelevant. It could have been some adoring staff with him since childhood who smudged his face and snuck him out as a servant.
     
  5. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    And I think that you may benefit from learning the basics of a subject you are writing about. Did your city of Kitchener had "Kitchener's army" and "Kitchener's boyars"? Had it been a capital of the independent state? Somehow I don't think so, which mean that your analogy is completely irrelevant. There were no "Novgorodian army" and "Novgorodian boyars" in 1700. Simply would not make any sense historically because both terms have quite certain meaning which ceased to exist couple centuries prior to the events of 1700.

    There is no indication that he did any antipathy when he was 10 years old.

    As I already said, you don't know the subject. Sheremetev, Romodanovsky, Repnin, Boris Golitsin, Vasily Dolgorukov, Fyodor Golovin, Gagarin and quite a few others had been members of the top Russian aristocracy and Peter's closest associates. Where did you get an idea that they hated Peter's reforms? An idea of a "reactionary Boyar Duma" existed mostly in the minds of Stalinist historians.

    Well, I realized that you don't know the subject you are trying to write about and got annoyed when pointed to the obvious lapses in your story. How about a little bit of objectivity?
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  6. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    It did not in OTL at the times of the previous and future dynastic crisises and it would not and there would be no "fiefs" and no return to the system which did not exist since the time of Ivan IV. Disappearance of the male heir would not mean disappearance of all heirs and there were 3 daughters of Ivan V one of which ended up as Empress of Russia.

    Fantasy unrelated to the Russian realities of even the previous reigns. BTW, there were no governors in 1700.

    Which "flanks"? An idea that after defeat at Narva Peter was going to give a field battle at Novgorod is absurd. City population was mobilized (in OTL) to build the earthworks around the existing old stone fortifications in the case of Charles' advance. Peter would leave defense of the city to Repnin with part of his force. Taking into an account that Charles did not have a heavy artillery, and that he did not have enough troops for a complete blockade of the city or supplies allowing to keep blockade for a long time, the worst case scenario for the Russians would be an improved version of Grodno (unlike Grodno, they'd have ability to supply the city): eventually they'd be forced to abandon the city.

    In a meantime Peter would continue raising the new troops, as did happen in OTL during the winter of 1700/01. Probably even Sheremetev's cavalry would not be redeployed: it was sent to the Baltic provinces before Charles' plans became known and Repnin had something like 10,000 Cossacks in Novgorod (besides the regular troops). Enough to create a lot of logistical problems for Charles if he stays near Novgorod.

    Which "situations"? We are talking about the siege, not a field battle: Novgorod was a fortified city and there would be no reason for the Russians to go outside its defenses.

    And Charles' ability to take even a quite modest fortress if it was stubbornly defended is quite questionable. Defenses of Poltava consisted of a rampart with a moat in front of it and a wooden stockade at the top of it. Garrison consisted of 4,182 soldiers and had 5 24 pounders, 4 18 pounders, 16 light guns of 1 - 3 pounds and 1 32 pounds mortair and was very short on gunpowder and cannonballs. Size of the besieging Swedish army was over 24,300 (this is a number for the late June, almost 2 months after siege started). Attempt to take fortress by a direct attack (April 29 and 30) failed. The following regular (Vauban-style) siege was still going on in the late June when Peter finally concentrated a big force in the area. So what would be the chances against a much bigger, better fortified, garrisoned and supplied fortress like Novgorod?
     
  7. Bytor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Kitchener, ON
    Except I never said that Novogorod here was an independent state. Again, I point to you reading in things not actually there and then responding to what is in your head. What I wrote was "Russian Boyars from Veliky Novgorod"

    "Centuries"? What about the Boyar Duma which decided that Peter would be the next Tsar when he was ten years old with his mom as regent? Or was Peter some vampire who was centuries old in 1700 instead of having been born in 1672?

    And were there no nobles who lived in Novgorod? No troop regiments stationed there or anything like that, hmm? As you say, there was no independent Novgorodian state as this time, but there were elements of the regime there, effectors of the Tsardom's governance structure like tax collectors, military commander, those in charge of drafting troops from the peasantry, judges for trials, and so on.

    So before you go on again arguing about this independent Novgorod which only exists in your head and not in anything that I wrote, I'm going to request that you don't bother posting here again unless you can please make a commitment to be civil instead of being an asshole, OK?
     
  8. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Which does not make any sense either because Novgorod was not the place where Duma was sitting.


    Do you have reading problems? I was talking about Novgorodian boyars.

    This is beyond being pathetic. The troops located in Kitchener (if there are any) are not "Kitchenearean army". I wrote at least twice that there was Repnin's corps positioned in Novgorod at the time of Narva but you are the 1st person who ever called it Novgorodian army. So congratulation on the important discovery in the Russian history.

    "Elements of the regime" were in each and every Russian town and your "argument" does not make any sense because they did not represent any independent entity. Neither were they "boyars". Repnin's corps was not permanently placed there and the city officials were not conducting any independent policy. Well, not that this was the biggest historic lapse of yours.

    I don't care about your requests and if you call me an asshole or something of the kind once more, I'll ask mediator to take care of your language.
     
  9. Arcavius Arms and the Man I Sing

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2018
    Earlier Kiel Canal with an independent pro Swedish S-H?
     
  10. HammerofWar Writer

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    So it's not 100% realistic. Still sounds pretty badass as a timeline.

    Subscribed
     
  11. Admiral Fisker Danish Gaullist

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    If this is what you're going for, I'm afraid I'll have to call it out as too much of a Caroluboo-wank and say that it crosses into ASB-territory.

    You don't build up a capable navy in just a couple of years. It takes decades. And the Swedish Navy in the 17th and 18th centuries was incapable of doing anything right, so in a war against Denmark they would have to rely on British, French and Dutch support - just like they did in 1700. The British, French and Dutch, however, only supported Sweden in 1700 because they were afraid of Denmark defeating Sweden and gaining the upper hand in the Baltic. In a scenario such as this one, they wouldn't support Sweden, since they're just as wary of Sweden gaining the upper hand (1658) as Denmark (1679, 1700). One country annexing the other is out of the question.

    Besides, how does Charles accomplish all this? You give credit to his military brilliance, but really he wasn't all that great. It was the skill of his soldiers, a result of his father's military reforms, that won him his battles, not his tactics. The Swedish Navy and its leadership was extremely incompetent whilst the Danish Navy has always been the strongest, best led and best organized part of the Danish military, so the Swedish Navy just outmaneuvering the Danish Navy at every turn won't happen. Neither would it be possible for Sweden to navigate through the narrow Danish straits (the Danish Navy, if I remember correctly, possessed top-secret, highly detailed and accurate maps of the country, meaning the Danish Navy would always have a huge advantage should an enemy power try to wrest control of the straits), let alone a narrow fjord. If the Swedish Navy tried to sail into Roskilde Fjord it would get annihilated, it would be suicide. A slight wind would ground their ships, a couple of batteries could sink them, and I'm not even sure the fjord is deep enough for larger ships to sail there. Besides, how would they land a force large enough (in one go, in your story they have the element of surprise) to match, not to mention defeat, the Danish armies? How would they do it through such narrow waters? How would they keep them supplied? This is a 18th century Sealion, sorry.

    The Swedish Army wouldn't be able to overrun Denmark in a matter of months. There are several large fortifications to contest with, and the ice has melted long ago. Copenhagen was one of strongest fortified cities in Europe, taking it would be very hard.

    Lastly, why does the Danes and Norwegians just accept that this autistic Swedish warmonger now rules their countries? Nationalism developed very early on in Denmark, and invading Swedish armies always had to contend with Danish guerillas - snapphaner and friskytter. One example of this early nationalism can be seen on Bornholm in 1658; the Danish population rebelled, killed the Swedish governor and swore allegiance to the Danish King. When Charles X Gustav stood outside Copenhagen in 1658, he tried to convince the Danes that it didn't matter whether they were ruled by Danes or Swedes. "What difference does it make whether it's King Frederick or King Charles?" he would ask. He didn't win any support because there was a fierce hatred between Danes and Swedes. Danes would never sit by and silently accept Swedish rule, nor would the Swedes accept Danish rule.

    And what about Norway? Norway is a tough nut to crack with its harsh winters and many mountains. Invading it would prove arduous, just like it did in real life: It cost Charles his life and it destroyed the remnants of the Carolean army. Even if Denmark should fall, Norway would fight on, you can be sure of that. If the royal family were to evacuate, it would be to Norway and not Iceland. In 1658, when it looked like Denmark might be wiped off the map of Europe, there were actually plans for the royal family to evacuate to, and continue the fight from, Norway. The idea of Charles magically defeating Denmark in a matter of months and then just acquiring Norway in the peace deal is ludicrous.

    I like the idea of the TL, but just watch out it doesn't become a wank.
     
    alexmilman likes this.
  12. Bytor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Kitchener, ON
    I'm not relying on the Swedish Navy though. They're a feint, not the main force, and a ferry service. That's all. They don't have beat the Danish Navy, just draw their attention.

    Same thing happens here. Given Charles' accomplishments in the first half of the OTL Great Northern War plus another decade of training, revamping tactics, etc…, I don't think it's as unreasonable to assume similar successes against the Danes. All of that, too, rested on the skill of his generals and staff to implement things. I'm generally not one to go for the "great man of history" theory.

    I'm not inseparably wedded to the idea of Sweden taking the crown of Denmark - you can see that I have mentioned reconning that part. But with that Gothenburg ploy to raise funds from British and Dutch shipping tolls is going to make the Danes angry and there will be consequences one way or another from it.
     
  13. Neptune IN BAD TASTE

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Location:
    Singapore
    Don't be put off by all the negative comments. If you want to write something and share it with the world, then do it. As long as it's written with proper grammar, punctuation, spacing, etc., there'll definitely be people who want to read it.