Von Adler,
I do not doubt the qualities of the Swedish army at that time, and certanly not the agrasive tacktical skills of Charles XII. Probably one of the best comanders of that time, even he is never that wel know as the more (over rated?) Mallborough.
But what I read, most historians agree that his army was at, or, over the limits of what it could take. The swedish army was exhousted, sufering from illnes, hunger, short of every thing ( how ever armies could live of the land)
If the Swedes took the field of Poltava could it not be just an other battle won , more a phirric victory, whit out really beaten the russians?
The army was starved, had frozen during the winter and had been harried by partisans and was weak, yes.
But the Swedish army won at Narva after marching for 7 days (with 4 days of provisions, the troops had not eaten for 48 hours when the enemy positions were stormed), with no winter uniforms, through rain, hail and snow, and charged the Russian army that was at least 3 times as big, in total probably 7 times as big (even if lots of the Russians did not participate in combat) with great success.
The Swedish troops were used to hardships.
I think that a Swedish victory at Poltava is not ASB, but very hard.
A Swedish victory will only mean something if it an be followed up. Is Peter captured or killed? Will the Cossacks actually rise as promised if the Swedes win? Will the Poles invade instead of halting at the Polish-Russian border as in OTL? Will the Crimeans and/or the Turks take the oppurtunity to act?
I agree with RGB that Karl XII needs the cavalry and Lewenhaupt and the supplies he had.
Actually, I don't think Karl XII was that a good General. He was a lousy strategist. He was a very inspirational leader, had a very experienced corps of generals (a proto-general staff if you will) and led the best army in the world at the time, which suited his boldness perfectly.