No too Great Northern War

The particular Eureka moment might have been realizing (during Great Embassy) that Swedish iron trade & their flax/hemp/other naval goods stuff goes to wharfs of Britain & the Netherlands, so in any possible war with Sweden blockaded the blockading side (unless it exports this stuff on its own) is due to get some asskicking from these powers.
Farfetched, I know, but it's the only way to realize that "easy walk in good company" is BAD idea from the get go.

Under almost any realistic scenario short of a complete Danish naval victory allowing to close the Sunds, blockade of the Swedish exports would not happen. By the end of the GNW Russians had been systematically destroying Swedish iron industry along the Baltic coast but by that time Britain was interested enough in the Russian trade for the admiral commanding its naval forces on the Baltic to sabotage the royal orders.

The "good company" had designs to the Eastern coast of the Baltic sea and, in the case of Denmark, to Shleswig. In other words, no immediate danger of damaging Swedish exports. Still, British and Dutch navies helped Charles in his attack on Denmark.
 
what do Sweden take from Poland, do Sweden establish a presonal union with Lithuania, if not that I expect Sweden to at least annex Royal Prussia and Courland, this would give the Swedes total control over Polish export. I would expect that controlling these two areas would likely double or triple the Swedish state budget, which to large extent build on Livonia.

It does not look like Charles was interested in any territorial gains at Polish expense and idea of the Swedish-Lithuanian union already had been tried by Charles Gustav an Janosh Radziwill and ended with a failure. Anyway, how a dedicated Lutheran could want union with a predominantly Catholic country? Not to mention that from any marginally sane person's point of view union with a country in a state of an anarchy hardly is an attractive idea.

I would say the next logical target would be to find a way to expand Swedish Pomerania to include all of Pomerania. But doing so would be very risky and likely to logical for Charles.

OK, in practical terms this would mean a war with Kingdom of Prussia. Rationale would be a revenge for the defeats suffered by Charles' predecessors. Economical gains questionable. The interesting part would be a fight between two high quality armies of approximately the same size.

Going to war with France are a conflict with small risks, relative small reward, but potential much glory. A war with France would improve Sweden's diplomatic position, but the gain would primarily be colonial.

France was a traditional ally and sponsor so war against it would make no sense as far as a traditional Swedish policy was involved. Not sure about the colonial part: Swedish navy at the time of Charles XII was not too impressive and Denmark was controlling access to the Atlantic Ocean.

Going to war with Austria on the other side would have great risks no greater rewards, but little glory.

Ideologically, it would be following the footsteps of the great Gustav Adolph with a possibility to loot Germany at will with zero risk for Sweden itself: after the Peace of Westfalia was signed, Queen Christina got a huge booty consisting of the works of arts, rare books and, of course, money. Charles could expect something of the kind. And, of course, a lot of glory.


The fast defeat of Denmark build on the Dutch and British navy, if Sweden enter the war against these powers, Denmark will likely be offered great gains to go to war with Sweden. This would pretty much be a disaster for Sweden while Denmark are no equal to the Swedes, they could pretty much cut the Swedish empire in half thanks to the bigger Danish navy.

This could happen in theory but (a) Britain was interested in Swedish exports and (b) as long as Sweden owned the whole Eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, its army could easily march from Livonia to Sweden by land.

As for Russia I like the idea of a Black Sea St. Petersburg, a Don-Volga canal, I suspect this would increase the Austrian focus on gaining a Black Sea port, which would create a entire alternative trading route, which would connect Persia-Russia-Austria, which I suspect will be very bad long term news for the Ottomans.

In the early 1700s Austria was not in a position to do anything of the kind even without the WoSS. It did try to operate in Moldavia against the Ottomans at the end of the XVIII but, rather typically, failed. I'm anything but sure that trade in this direction would make too much sense for the Hapsburgs and, anyway, the main region of their anti-Ottoman activities were the Balkans.
 
On another side, that means that Peter never meets Marta Skavronskaya, and the PoD is before him discovering Anne Mons likes whoring around/does not like him. I'm dreading and facepalming on idea of Mons the Tsarina, but this is waay too close TTL.

And it also means that probably he is succeeded by Alexei whom he is not going to kill without a push from Marta/Catherine. Anna as his wife is a little bit too far fetched, IMHO.
 
And it also means that probably he is succeeded by Alexei whom he is not going to kill without a push from Marta/Catherine. Anna as his wife is a little bit too far fetched, IMHO.
He attempted OTL but never did. Probably because he discovered she does not like him?
Maybe an attempt to court Elisabeth Cantermir, if Peter is dead set on divorcing Eudoxia and she is still unmarried. Makes sence in "better organized South", and Peter courted her niece OTL.
 
Last edited:
General premise:
This requires a somewhat ASBish thing, namely slight changes in the personality of two Peter I.

Peter must have to improve his ability to think logically and consistently before jumping to the action so, in the late 1695, during prolonged drinking party following capture of Azov, he occasionally hits his head which results in some subtle changes that none of his entourage even noticed (I'm rather reluctant to attribute the positive changes strictly to extensive drinking and whoring ;) ).

Still in OTL:
Access to the Sea of Azov proved to be of a limited usefulness as long as the Ottomans controlled the Strait of Kerch.

View attachment 389727

In 1696 creation of the Russian navy had been decreed. In 1699 Russia's Azov fleet set sail for Kerch, the peninsula in the eastern Crimea. The attack fleet numbered ten ships of the line armed with a total of 366 guns and carrying a combined crew of 2,126 seamen and officers, and accompanied by two galleys and sixteen smaller craft. The Pasha of Kerch was so overwhelmed at the sight of this unexpected and threatening display of naval strength that he surrendered without offering resistance.

The 46-gun Krepost [Fortress] carried the Tsar's first diplomatic mission across the Black Sea to Constantinople. According to the truce signed a year later, the Sea of Azov and its coastal territory were officially relinquished to Russia but Kerch was returned to the Ottomans with a provisions allowing free Russian shipping on the Black Sea.

This was better than nothing but, in practical terms, not so much: there was still Crimean Khanate with its regular raids into Southern Russian territories and not a single good port (the wharves were up the Don River in Voronez, which created numerous problems).

In 1698 Johann Patkul, at that time on a service of August II Strong, of Saxony and Poland, appeared in Moscow with the proposal of a great alliance against Sweden. His initial plan involved participation of Saxony, Denmark and Brandenburg but, when Brandenburg proved to be unwilling, he reluctantly switched to Russia (nobody in Europe was excessively impressed by the Azov campaigns and Russian military prestige was quite low). According to his plan, August, helped by the general anti-Swedish uprising of the local nobility, will conquer Livonia (Riga, the biggest port on the Baltic sea, was going to be a major price) while Peter will get Estonia and Ingria (the only place of a noticeable significance - port of Narva).

250px-Sw_BalticProv_en.png


POD:
Peter received Patkul but did not show any enthusiasm:

1st, Russian tasks on the South had been far from completed: there still was unresolved "Crimean Issue", need for the better ports, and of the further Ottoman concessions regarding the navigation rights (not as much because there was a pressing demand from the Russian merchants, there was none, but rather as a matter of "principle": in Peter's opinion to become "European" Russia must have navy so why drop things in a middle for some wild goose chase schema).

2nd, There was no pressing need for having an access to the Baltic Sea. Archangelsk on the White Sea had been functioning and the trade through the Swedish-held ports of Narva and Revel never stopped (by Stolbovoy Peace the custom dues had been set to an acceptably low level). For the growing trade with Persia and China Baltic ports were completely irrelevant.

3rd, Experience of the Azov campaigns clearly demonstrated that Russian army is not, yet, up to the serious tasks.

Patkul left Moscow with nothing but the best wishes while Peter confirmed the existing peace treaty with Charles.

Not too Great Northern War:

August was not too dismayed by Patkul's failure: after all, nobody was taking Russia seriously anyway and the combined forces of Saxony and Denmark should be quite adequate for the task. In the early 1700 7,000 of the Saxon troops marched to Riga without even bothering to take with them a siege artillery. They took 2 outlying fortifications but could not proceed any further and after hearing about approach of the Swedish forces assembled in Livonia, retreated. Few months later August arrived with his main force (and artillery) but well-fortified Riga refused to capitulate. By the fall of 1700 August lost interest and left the siege: his infantry was sent to the winter quarters in Curland, cavalry to Lithuania and August himself went to Warsaw (admittedly, much more entertaining place). There was a rumor that the merchants of Riga secretly offered August a bribe of 100, 000 thalers for leaving them alone.

300px-Bm04004abm.jpg


After forcing Denmark to sign a peace treaty, Charles arrived to Livonia in the late 1700 and proceeded dealing with August whom he considered a bad person both for his immoral life style and because of his change of religion (as a "man of principle" Charles though that the sins and injustice must be punished).

For the next few years Charles had a quality time chasing August all over Poland. In 1704 he created his own Polish king, Stanislaw Leschinski, while August and his supporters officially declared the Commonwealth being at war with Sweden, which added an extra factor to the ongoing entertaining: now the Poles could chose which of two kings they can support, which allowed them to start fighting each other, Swedes and Saxons in all possible combinations. By 1706 Charles forced August to abdicate (as King of Poland) and, finally figured out that invasion of Saxony may be a good idea (strategy and diplomacy were not exactly his forte). August immediately capitulated and Swedish army was left in the winter quarters in Saxony.

The Northern War is over (at least for a while) without growing into something even marginally "Great".

Real entertainment starts:

At this point European states became seriously interested in what was so far considered a somewhat "exotic" conflict. Presumably 30 - 40,000 thousands Swedes (nobody knew for sure how many) led by Charles XII (by whatever reasons, his status of the great and perhaps even the greatest general of the time was not questioned) and strategically placed in Saxony could make a lot of difference depending on which (if any) side he chose. The Duke of Marlborough traveled to his headquarters but these two instantly disliked each other and their meeting ended up being a competition "who is a bigger prick".
350px-Holy_Roman_Empire_c._1700.png


Charles was definitely tempted to help his Protestant brethren in Hungary, presently fighting against the Hapsburg rule and to help Protestants in Austrian Silesia.

France was working diligently on bringing Charles to its side (after all, Sweden was a traditional ally of France).

The Emperor was ready to make a compromise peace with Sweden but, unlike OTL where Charles has "item # <whatever>, now I have to punish Russia" on his list, Charles has nothing interesting to do and refuses. The Hapsburgs being traditional enemies of Sweden, his choice is obvious and the fact that his army is within 10 marches from Vienna, make this choice even more obvious.

By that time the Allies are successful on the "Northern Front" (Battle of Ramillies) and in Italy (Battel fo Turin) but are losing ground in Spain where by November 1706, the Bourbons controlled Castile, Murcia and parts of Valencia.

From this point scenario is open to the further speculations. :cool:

Peter and the Ottomans

Peter keeps building up his army and navy getting ready to the next war against the Ottomans. His immediate target - the Crimean Khanate.
Even if Russia conquers the entire Crimean Khanate they will still be dependent on passage thru Ottoman straits like the Bosphorus.
 
France was a traditional ally and sponsor so war against it would make no sense as far as a traditional Swedish policy was involved. Not sure about the colonial part: Swedish navy at the time of Charles XII was not too impressive and Denmark was controlling access to the Atlantic Ocean.

And what exactly has France done for Sweden of late? IIRC (however Scandinavian history is not my specialty) didn't Carl XI have a grudge against France for NOT helping Sweden in the Swedes' last war?

In my mind, France wasn't particularly useful as an ally to either the Swedes, Poles or the Scots. Yet for some unknown reason, all three liked the idea of a French alliance - I guess if you're bullied at school, youwanna be friends with someone bigger than the bully. Even if that's a bigger bully who doesn't always care if what he does/says impacts you negatively
 
Even if Russia conquers the entire Crimean Khanate they will still be dependent on passage thru Ottoman straits like the Bosphorus.
Yes, they would and they had been. This issue had been taken care of by the treaties (usually following one more Ottoman defeat)
 
And what exactly has France done for Sweden of late? IIRC (however Scandinavian history is not my specialty) didn't Carl XI have a grudge against France for NOT helping Sweden in the Swedes' last war?

In my mind, France wasn't particularly useful as an ally to either the Swedes, Poles or the Scots. Yet for some unknown reason, all three liked the idea of a French alliance - I guess if you're bullied at school, youwanna be friends with someone bigger than the bully. Even if that's a bigger bully who doesn't always care if what he does/says impacts you negatively

All true but how are you going to change the attitudes?

Strictly speaking, France was quite useful as a Swedish ally during the 30YW because it paid considerable subsidies. IIRC, there was some French subsidy paid to Charles XII to enable his little adventure but I'm not 100%.
 
All true but how are you going to change the attitudes?

Strictly speaking, France was quite useful as a Swedish ally during the 30YW because it paid considerable subsidies. IIRC, there was some French subsidy paid to Charles XII to enable his little adventure but I'm not 100%.

AFAIK it was to stop him getting involved in the WotSS not so much to say to him "have at it sonny boy, go start your own war, just don't mess with the grown ups' one"
 
AFAIK it was to stop him getting involved in the WotSS not so much to say to him "have at it sonny boy, go start your own war, just don't mess with the grown ups' one"

To Charles' defense, it was not him who started this war (he just could not conduct it properly and end when the opportunity was available). OTOH, if the coalition of Denmark-Saxony-Russia did not start it, France could welcome Charles' participation on her side and the chances of him going against the emperor was higher that those of him going against France.

Actually, there can be an interesting opportunity of Charles entering WoSS AND serving both French and his own interests. Sweden attacks Prussia-Brandenburg to return German territories lost in the previous wars. Prussian army is not big enough to both fight Charles AND supply significant contingents to the Allied cause (among other places, in the Battle of Turin Prussian contingent played a significant role). As a result, the French are in a better situation and may not even lose in Italy.

On a broader scale, Charles can promise August part of Brandenburg or Silesia or even Kingdom of Prussia (in a narrow meaning of the term, the former Ducal Prussia) for the Saxon participation.
 
And what exactly has France done for Sweden of late? IIRC (however Scandinavian history is not my specialty) didn't Carl XI have a grudge against France for NOT helping Sweden in the Swedes' last war?
Actually, while the Scanian War was started by Sweden at the behest of France, France was crucial in Sweden not losing anything in that war. Swedish Pomerania was occupied by Brandenburg Prussia and while Charles XI had regained some provinces captured by Denmark, there was actual land in Swedish proper under Danish control at this time. Sweden's fleet had been beaten by Brandenburg-Prussia, and its army by Prussia.

France under Louis XIV managed to break the anti-Franco-Swedish alliance by conducting separate peaces, and when Denmark and Sweden started negotiations a French army marched into Oldenburg and Jutland. This force basically forced the Danish into accepting the Treaty of Fontainbleau, which returned all the captured provinces back to Sweden. The issue was that in these negotiations Louis negotiated on behalf of Charles XI without receiving permission, thus imposing on Charles' royal prerogative. Practically, French power and influence prevented Sweden from losing anything from this overall lost war (even if it was close in areas), but personally Charles XI was insulted by the French king's presumption. The subsequent Treaty of Lund was the peace actually signed between Denmark and Sweden, upholding Fontainbleau. The enmity of Charles XI towards Louis was purely personal affront.
 
Top